If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw


Bob-tx

On Jul 6, 11:06*am, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

This printer probably has uses and applications that haven't even been
thought of.
JoeG

In article ,
"Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:

If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw


Bob-tx

It's real and has been around for a decade or two. Mostly used for
prototyping, as materials are not as strong as real manufacturing
methods, and process is quite slow. Cost of machines varies from 50k to
at 500k or more, I believe, but a decent entry-level machine can be had
for about 100k.

On Jul 6, 10:22*am, GROVER wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:06*am, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:

If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

This printer probably has uses and applications that haven't even been
thought of.
JoeG

Rapid Prototyping has been around for quiet a while. It allows
engineers to convert 3D imaging from CAD or CATIA into "things" to
check function and fit. I got a tour of the Rapid Prototyping Lab at
the Technology Center at Pittsburg State University (Kansas) about 12
years ago and it rolled my eyes back. They were not using this
"printing" technology. They were actually molding or machining mock
parts from lightweight material and a composite laminate.

However, there might be a little hocus-pocus in the video.

RonB

On Jul 6, 4:06*pm, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:42:45 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:

If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw


Bob-tx

It's real and has been around for a decade or two.

I remember reading about 3D in some computer mag or another-- so it
had to have been late 90's that I saw it first. At the time they
were doing solids- like bolts and nuts- no moving parts. No
color. It built things up in layers like a CAT scan.

This is way cooler.

In the 90's they were saying how it would revolutionize the parts
industry in a decade. I was thinking about all those faxes people
send from office Christmas parties-- 3D would give them a whole new
life.

Jim

On Jul 6, 11:42*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*"Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:

If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

It's real and has been around for a decade or two. Mostly used for
prototyping, as materials are not as strong as real manufacturing
methods, and process is quite slow. Cost of machines varies from 50k to
at 500k or more, I believe, but a decent entry-level machine can be had
for about 100k.

"It's real and has been around for a decade or two."

While 3D printing has indeed been around for a "decade or two" - we
had it at the Kodak Research Labs when I worked there in an earlier
life - the technology to make items with colored moving parts in "one
pass" is not that old.

I can't give you a date, but I'm pretty confident in saying that "3D
colored moving parts printing" not "a decade or two" old.

In article
,
harry wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:06*pm, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Right, has to be bull**** because you've never seen it.

In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jul 6, 11:42*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*"Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:

If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

It's real and has been around for a decade or two. Mostly used for
prototyping, as materials are not as strong as real manufacturing
methods, and process is quite slow. Cost of machines varies from 50k to
at 500k or more, I believe, but a decent entry-level machine can be had
for about 100k.

"It's real and has been around for a decade or two."

While 3D printing has indeed been around for a "decade or two" - we
had it at the Kodak Research Labs when I worked there in an earlier
life - the technology to make items with colored moving parts in "one
pass" is not that old.

I can't give you a date, but I'm pretty confident in saying that "3D
colored moving parts printing" not "a decade or two" old.

A minor improvement. The moving part is accomplished by creating
temporary bridges to support it. Color? Add some color to the material.
Again, not a "leaps and bounds" type of thing.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:40:16 -0400, dadiOH wrote:
OMG!!! I wonder if it can make 20 year old blondes?

No, it can only make new ones, and then you have to wait 20 years.

On 7/6/2011 11:17 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:42:45 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In et,
"Bob-tx"No Spam no contact wrote:

If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw


Bob-tx

It's real and has been around for a decade or two.

I remember reading about 3D in some computer mag or another-- so it
had to have been late 90's that I saw it first. At the time they
were doing solids- like bolts and nuts- no moving parts. No
color. It built things up in layers like a CAT scan.

This is way cooler.

In the 90's they were saying how it would revolutionize the parts
industry in a decade. I was thinking about all those faxes people
send from office Christmas parties-- 3D would give them a whole new
life.

Jim

Sitting on the copy or fax machine and produce or transmit a 3D copy
of your butt? ^_^

TDD

On 7/6/2011 11:16 AM, harry wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:06 pm, "Bob-tx"No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Harry, it's real and was produced by ignorant, stupid, savage Americans.
The first example of a rapid prototyping machine I saw up close and
personal was at a computer exposition in the early 1990's which used a
liquid and a laser beam to harden the liquid plastic as the platform
lowered itself into the liquid bath. Stupid, savage medical researchers
in The United States have used ink jet printing technology to make
replacement body parts. I believe they are using a collagen material to
produce a matrix for living cells to grow into and form a new organ or
part. Not bad for ignorant, stupid, war mongering, savage terrorists. :-)

TDD

harry wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:06 pm, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

My suspicion is that they just skipped the step where someone went into the CAD
files generated in the scan to refine the unseen elements before printing.

In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

My suspicion is that they just skipped the step where someone went into the
CAD
files generated in the scan to refine the unseen elements before printing.

Agreed. Jay Leno - a guy I don't like mostly because he doesn't seem to
realize that he looks like a freak from another planet (if he realized
it I'd be OK with it) - did an episode of Jay Leno's Garage featuring
this technology, and ISTR they had to touch-up the scan. He was making
"otherwise unobtainable" parts for antique cars with it.

On Jul 6, 5:29*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,





*harry wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:06*pm, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Right, has to be bull**** because you've never seen it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's bull**** because common sense/elementary education tells you so.
But there are a lot of people here sadly lacking in any of these.

On Jul 7, 12:45*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 7/6/2011 11:16 AM, harry wrote:





On Jul 6, 4:06 pm, "Bob-tx"No Spam no contact *wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Harry, it's real and was produced by ignorant, stupid, savage Americans.
The first example of a rapid prototyping machine I saw up close and
personal was at a computer exposition in the early 1990's which used a
liquid and a laser beam to harden the liquid plastic as the platform
lowered itself into the liquid bath. Stupid, savage medical researchers
in The United States have used ink jet printing technology to make
replacement body parts. I believe they are using a collagen material to
produce a matrix for living cells to grow into and form a new organ or
part. Not bad for ignorant, stupid, war mongering, savage terrorists. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote sources.
And were they able to make working gearboxes as shown on the hoax?

You are the last person I expected to be taken in by this crap on
Youtube.
Total ********.

On 7/7/2011 1:26 AM, harry wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 7/6/2011 11:16 AM, harry wrote:





On Jul 6, 4:06 pm, "Bob-tx"No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Harry, it's real and was produced by ignorant, stupid, savage Americans.
The first example of a rapid prototyping machine I saw up close and
personal was at a computer exposition in the early 1990's which used a
liquid and a laser beam to harden the liquid plastic as the platform
lowered itself into the liquid bath. Stupid, savage medical researchers
in The United States have used ink jet printing technology to make
replacement body parts. I believe they are using a collagen material to
produce a matrix for living cells to grow into and form a new organ or
part. Not bad for ignorant, stupid, war mongering, savage terrorists. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote sources.
And were they able to make working gearboxes as shown on the hoax?

You are the last person I expected to be taken in by this crap on
Youtube.
Total ********.


I've read the scientific and engineering journals on it over the years.
I read everything I can get my hands on about any number of things. The
rapid prototyping technology has been around for many years and it is
now in a very advanced state in countries all over the world including
The UK. The 3D printers CAN produce moving parts in one step. ^_^

http://www.baldor.com/pdf/literature...7_0908_WEB.pdf

http://www.gizmag.com/dimension-upri...desktop/13743/

http://www.intechopen.com/source/pdf...r_robotics.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/6xbs3t4

TDD

In article
,
harry wrote:


It's bull**** because common sense/elementary education tells you so.
But there are a lot of people here sadly lacking in any of these.

Sorry to disappoint you, but apparently you still don't know everything.
The "common sense / elementary education" objection was trotted out then
those idiot Wright Brothers were trying to build an impossible flying
machine, too.

On Jul 6, 5:29*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,





*harry wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:06*pm, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Right, has to be bull**** because you've never seen it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Never seen it because it don't exist.

On Jul 7, 9:45*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 7/7/2011 1:26 AM, harry wrote:





On Jul 7, 12:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 7/6/2011 11:16 AM, harry wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:06 pm, "Bob-tx"No Spam no contact * *wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Harry, it's real and was produced by ignorant, stupid, savage Americans.
The first example of a rapid prototyping machine I saw up close and
personal was at a computer exposition in the early 1990's which used a
liquid and a laser beam to harden the liquid plastic as the platform
lowered itself into the liquid bath. Stupid, savage medical researchers
in The United States have used ink jet printing technology to make
replacement body parts. I believe they are using a collagen material to
produce a matrix for living cells to grow into and form a new organ or
part. Not bad for ignorant, stupid, war mongering, savage terrorists. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote sources.
And were they able to make working gearboxes as shown on the hoax?

You are the last person I expected to be taken in by this crap on
Youtube.
Total ********.

I've read the scientific and engineering journals on it over the years.
I read everything I can get my hands on about any number of things. The
rapid prototyping technology has been around for many years and it is
now in a very advanced state in countries all over the world including
The UK. The 3D printers CAN produce moving parts in one step. ^_^

http://www.baldor.com/pdf/literature...7_0908_WEB.pdf

http://www.gizmag.com/dimension-upri...desktop/13743/

http://www.intechopen.com/source/pdf...ototyping_for_...

http://tinyurl.com/6xbs3t4

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right I read through your links. It confirms exactly what I said.
No-one is claiming to make multipart objects. They make separate
components which can be assembled.
The origin of the parts made is a CAD programme. No-one is scanning
spanners.

Explain to me how you supposed a "scanner" could determine the
dimensions of the thread inside the spanner.

On Jul 6, 2:32*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,





*DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:42 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:

If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

It's real and has been around for a decade or two. Mostly used for
prototyping, as materials are not as strong as real manufacturing
methods, and process is quite slow. Cost of machines varies from 50k to
at 500k or more, I believe, but a decent entry-level machine can be had
for about 100k.

"It's real and has been around for a decade or two."

While 3D printing has indeed been around for a "decade or two" - we
had it at the Kodak Research Labs when I worked there in an earlier
life - the technology to make items with colored moving parts in "one
pass" is not that old.

I can't give you a date, but I'm pretty confident in saying that "3D
colored moving parts printing" not "a decade or two" old.

A minor improvement. The moving part is accomplished by creating
temporary bridges to support it. Color? Add some color to the material.
Again, not a "leaps and bounds" type of thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't recall saying anything about it being a "leaps and bounds type
of thing".

I merely pointed out that the moving parts and color output is not a
decade or two old as you seemed to imply:

"It's real and has been around for a decade or two"

On Jul 6, 12:16*pm, harry wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:06*pm, "Bob-tx" No Spam no contact wrote:

If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Do you really think that they showed you the entire process?

Do you really think that they just threw the wrench on a flatbed
scanner, sent the image to the printer and POOF! out came a
functioning wrench?

I had a inlay for a molar made in the dentist's office right before my
eyes. Check out this video. It shows a detail account of the "imaging"
process. With multiple pictures stitched together by the computer,
there's no reason to think that the "internal threads" (which, by the
way, are just the opposite of the readily viewable external threads)
couldn't be figured out by the computer and sent to the printer.

What's not shown here is the operator's ability to alter the "scanned"
images to add parts that might not have been picked up by the camera.
A key fact when you think about the "internal threads".

http://www.cereconline.com/cerec/demo.html

Just for fun, this video includes the milling process which was done
in the same room where I was sitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZlfiSCqAEg

On 07/07/11 2:38 PM, harry wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 7/7/2011 1:26 AM, harry wrote:





On Jul 7, 12:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 7/6/2011 11:16 AM, harry wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:06 pm, "Bob-tx"No Spam no contact wrote:
If this is real, and it does appear to be,
it will absolutely boggle your mind.

It brings questions to mind like how much does
the equipment cost, how strong is the product,
and how much does a finished product cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Bob-tx

I have my doubts about complex mechanisms. Ergo it's ********.
How, for example, was the machine/"scanner" able to determine the
nature of the thread inside the wrench?

No-one could determine that without dismantling the wrench first.
Ergo, niether could the machine.

Ergo, ********.

Possibly could be done for simple, none hollow, components.

But even then scanning would have to be done from all six sides, and
the object would have to be securely fixed as would the scanner.

So as displayed, total ********, only dopey Americans would be taken
in.

Harry, it's real and was produced by ignorant, stupid, savage Americans.
The first example of a rapid prototyping machine I saw up close and
personal was at a computer exposition in the early 1990's which used a
liquid and a laser beam to harden the liquid plastic as the platform
lowered itself into the liquid bath. Stupid, savage medical researchers
in The United States have used ink jet printing technology to make
replacement body parts. I believe they are using a collagen material to
produce a matrix for living cells to grow into and form a new organ or
part. Not bad for ignorant, stupid, war mongering, savage terrorists. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote sources.
And were they able to make working gearboxes as shown on the hoax?

You are the last person I expected to be taken in by this crap on
Youtube.
Total ********.

I've read the scientific and engineering journals on it over the years.
I read everything I can get my hands on about any number of things. The
rapid prototyping technology has been around for many years and it is
now in a very advanced state in countries all over the world including
The UK. The 3D printers CAN produce moving parts in one step. ^_^

http://www.baldor.com/pdf/literature...7_0908_WEB.pdf

http://www.gizmag.com/dimension-upri...desktop/13743/

http://www.intechopen.com/source/pdf...ototyping_for_...

http://tinyurl.com/6xbs3t4

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right I read through your links. It confirms exactly what I said.
No-one is claiming to make multipart objects. They make separate
components which can be assembled.
The origin of the parts made is a CAD programme. No-one is scanning
spanners.

Explain to me how you supposed a "scanner" could determine the
dimensions of the thread inside the spanner.

Keep reading until you see my post about the Cerec machine used in
dentistry.

Or visit this link:

http://www.cereconline.com/cerec/demo.html

The "scanner" in question is probably not your basic flatbed scanner,
but instead a *camera* like that used with the Cerec system. Multiple
pictures are taken and stitched together in a Cad/Cam machine before
sending the data to the printer (or to a milling machine in the case of
dental implants)

2 things that the video didn't show that might "explain how a 'scanner'
could determine the dimensions of the thread inside the spanner."

1 - The spanner could have been disassembled and pictures taken of the
interior threads.

2 - As in the case of the inlay the dentist made for me while I watched,
the images were manipulated by the operator before the data was sent to
the printer.

Let's think abut what we know about the dimensions of the interior
threads of a spanner. Seems to me that they would have to be pretty
close to the dimensions of the *exterior* threads of a spanner. In fact,
they are the exact opposite, aren't they?

One click of a mouse in a Cad/Cam application would "invert" the
dimensions of the exterior threads and create an image of the interior
threads.

Do you really think that when they design 2 mating parts in a Cad/Cam
machine they design one part from the very beginning and then start from
scratch and design the opposite image from the very beginning? You'd be
really surprised what computers can do these days.

In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:



I don't recall saying anything about it being a "leaps and bounds type
of thing".

I merely pointed out that the moving parts and color output is not a
decade or two old as you seemed to imply:

"It's real and has been around for a decade or two"

Inference I drew, perhaps erroneously, from Original Post is that
Original Poster had never seen rapid protoyping / 3D printing of any
type. The general concept has been around for a decade or two, and I
maintain that the moving parts concept and the color concept are
relatively minor. OP certainly didn't mention those aspects as the ones
that astounded him.

In article
,
harry wrote:

Never seen it because it don't exist.

Attempting to save face by stubbornly clinging to your ignorance is
usually counterproductive. My ego takes a boot to the ass every time I
stand corrected, but it's better than the alternative.

What exactly to you find so preposterous? That machines exist which can
deposit thin layers of material, one atop the other, until a solid
object is created? That hardly violates any junior high school physics
principle.

On Jul 8, 3:30*am, harry wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:57*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*harry wrote:
Never seen it because it don't exist.

Attempting to save face by stubbornly clinging to your ignorance is
usually counterproductive. My ego takes a boot to the ass every time I
stand corrected, but it's better than the alternative.

What exactly to you find so preposterous? That machines exist which can
deposit thin layers of material, one atop the other, until a solid
object is created? That hardly violates any junior high school physics
principle.

The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not going to
give suffiient information.
Especially just waving a gadget over it.
Even when you scan a bit of paper it has to be laid out flat and kept
still during the process.
And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of the
screw inside the wrench is determined.
There IS only one way. By dis-assembly.

As for the female thread, as someone else said that can't be scanned
it has to be deduced. By human intervention.

Hence it's ********.
And if one bit is ********, it casts doubt over the remainder.
(Especially that gearbox).

"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

Do you not actually *read* what people write in response to your posts
or are you just being a troll trying to drag us all down into the
dark, dank abyss of usenet?

Twice, not once, but *twice*, I have posted that the operator has the
ability to manipulate the image. I have also pointed out that the
internal threads are the exact opposite of the external threads so
that they are easliy reproduced by the CAD/CAM system.

Watch the Cerec video I posted the link to. It shows that the
"scanning" process is a bit more complicated than just waving a wand
over the object.

Are you sticking to your assertion that it's not possible because they
edited the video for time and cut out the parts where the scanning
could have taken an hour and the image manipulation even longer? If
that's your reasoning, then I guess you would say that *any* process
shown on a video that does not detail ever single piece of process
minutia is a crock.

If you saw a video of plane taking off in NY and landing in London
would you call it a fake because the video didn't show the entire 7
hour flight over the ocean?

"The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not
going to give suffiient information"

Why do you keep insisting on posting points that don't make any sense?
Whoever said that the scanning was done from only one side? Oh
wait...I get it. They didn't show you the complete scanning process,
so therefore they must not have done anything else than what was shown
in the video. Just like the plane that couldn't have made it to London
because you didn't see it fly across the ocean.

Do youself (and us) a favor. It'll help..really:

Go to ZCorp site and watch the webcast on their 3-D scanner. I believe
it will fill in the missing pieces so that you have won't have to put
forth any effort to imagine it in your own mind.


http://www.zcorp.com/en/forms/Watch+...0140000000IJeb

In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

You've got more patience than I do with our idiot English friend. I
don't think Harry's ever actually seen a crescent wrench. If he doesn't
have his own, he could take a look at the video around the 9-12 second
mark and they show a closeup of the wrench. Not much hidden about the
thread mechanism. It isn't "inside" the wrench at all.

On Jul 8, 12:15*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*DerbyDad03 wrote:
"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. *There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

You've got more patience than I do with our idiot English friend. I
don't think Harry's ever actually seen a crescent wrench. If he doesn't
have his own, he could take a look at the video around the 9-12 second
mark and they show a closeup of the wrench. Not much hidden about the
thread mechanism. It isn't "inside" the wrench at all.

I feel the need to help the less fortunate amongst us...it's just part
of my nature. ;-)

On Jul 8, 3:51*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:30*am, harry wrote:





On Jul 8, 3:57*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*harry wrote:
Never seen it because it don't exist.

Attempting to save face by stubbornly clinging to your ignorance is
usually counterproductive. My ego takes a boot to the ass every time I
stand corrected, but it's better than the alternative.

What exactly to you find so preposterous? That machines exist which can
deposit thin layers of material, one atop the other, until a solid
object is created? That hardly violates any junior high school physics
principle.

The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not going to
give suffiient information.
Especially just waving a gadget over it.
Even when you scan a bit of paper it has to be laid out flat and kept
still during the process.
And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of the
screw inside the wrench is determined.
There IS only one way. By dis-assembly.

As for the female thread, as someone else said that can't be scanned
it has to be deduced. By human intervention.

Hence it's ********.
And if one bit is ********, it casts doubt over the remainder.
(Especially that gearbox).

"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. *There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

Do you not actually *read* what people write in response to your posts
or are you just being a troll trying to drag us all down into the
dark, dank abyss of usenet?

Twice, not once, but *twice*, *I have posted that the operator has the
ability to manipulate the image. I have also pointed out that the
internal threads are the exact opposite of the external threads so
that they are easliy reproduced by the CAD/CAM system.

Watch the Cerec video I posted the link to. It shows that the
"scanning" process is a bit more complicated than just waving a wand
over the object.

Are you sticking to your assertion that it's not possible because they
edited the video for time and cut out the parts where the scanning
could have taken an hour and the image manipulation even longer? If
that's your reasoning, then I guess you would say that *any* process
shown on a video that does not detail ever single piece of process
minutia is a crock.

If you saw a video of plane taking off in NY and landing in London
would you call it a fake because the video didn't show the entire 7
hour flight over the ocean?

*"The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not
going to give suffiient information"

Why do you keep insisting on posting points that don't make any sense?
Whoever said that the scanning was done from only one side? Oh
wait...I get it. They didn't show you the complete scanning process,
so therefore they must not have done anything else than what was shown
in the video. Just like the plane that couldn't have made it to London
because you didn't see it fly across the ocean.

Do youself (and us) a favor. It'll help..really:

Go to ZCorp site and watch the webcast on their 3-D scanner. I believe
it will fill in the missing pieces so that you have won't have to put
forth any effort to imagine it in your own mind.

http://www.zcorp.com/en/forms/Watch+...able+3D+Sc...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I only had to see the bit where he lifted the complete wrench out of
the box of "dust" to know it was a lie.

If he had had the four components separately and assembled them, then
slightly more believable.

It was dumbed down crap for the credulous.

On Jul 8, 5:15*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*DerbyDad03 wrote:
"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. *There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

You've got more patience than I do with our idiot English friend. I
don't think Harry's ever actually seen a crescent wrench. If he doesn't
have his own, he could take a look at the video around the 9-12 second
mark and they show a closeup of the wrench. Not much hidden about the
thread mechanism. It isn't "inside" the wrench at all.

I think you are the half wit.
Clearly you have never dissembled this sort of wrench. There is a
screw up the middle of the visible worm gear. This is the one I refer
to.
Why do you rant on about tools you have clearly never examined/seen?

On Jul 8, 3:51*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:30*am, harry wrote:





On Jul 8, 3:57*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*harry wrote:
Never seen it because it don't exist.

Attempting to save face by stubbornly clinging to your ignorance is
usually counterproductive. My ego takes a boot to the ass every time I
stand corrected, but it's better than the alternative.

What exactly to you find so preposterous? That machines exist which can
deposit thin layers of material, one atop the other, until a solid
object is created? That hardly violates any junior high school physics
principle.

The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not going to
give suffiient information.
Especially just waving a gadget over it.
Even when you scan a bit of paper it has to be laid out flat and kept
still during the process.
And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of the
screw inside the wrench is determined.
There IS only one way. By dis-assembly.

As for the female thread, as someone else said that can't be scanned
it has to be deduced. By human intervention.

Hence it's ********.
And if one bit is ********, it casts doubt over the remainder.
(Especially that gearbox).

"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. *There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

Do you not actually *read* what people write in response to your posts
or are you just being a troll trying to drag us all down into the
dark, dank abyss of usenet?

Twice, not once, but *twice*, *I have posted that the operator has the
ability to manipulate the image. I have also pointed out that the
internal threads are the exact opposite of the external threads so
that they are easliy reproduced by the CAD/CAM system.

Watch the Cerec video I posted the link to. It shows that the
"scanning" process is a bit more complicated than just waving a wand
over the object.

Are you sticking to your assertion that it's not possible because they
edited the video for time and cut out the parts where the scanning
could have taken an hour and the image manipulation even longer? If
that's your reasoning, then I guess you would say that *any* process
shown on a video that does not detail ever single piece of process
minutia is a crock.

If you saw a video of plane taking off in NY and landing in London
would you call it a fake because the video didn't show the entire 7
hour flight over the ocean?

*"The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not
going to give suffiient information"

Why do you keep insisting on posting points that don't make any sense?
Whoever said that the scanning was done from only one side? Oh
wait...I get it. They didn't show you the complete scanning process,
so therefore they must not have done anything else than what was shown
in the video. Just like the plane that couldn't have made it to London
because you didn't see it fly across the ocean.

Do youself (and us) a favor. It'll help..really:

Go to ZCorp site and watch the webcast on their 3-D scanner. I believe
it will fill in the missing pieces so that you have won't have to put
forth any effort to imagine it in your own mind.

http://www.zcorp.com/en/forms/Watch+...able+3D+Sc...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I knew it was a lie when he lifted a complete wrench from the box of
"dust".
If he had the four separate componets to assemble then maybe I would
have believed it.

On Jul 8, 2:22*pm, harry wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:51*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:





On Jul 8, 3:30*am, harry wrote:

On Jul 8, 3:57*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*harry wrote:
Never seen it because it don't exist.

Attempting to save face by stubbornly clinging to your ignorance is
usually counterproductive. My ego takes a boot to the ass every time I
stand corrected, but it's better than the alternative.

What exactly to you find so preposterous? That machines exist which can
deposit thin layers of material, one atop the other, until a solid
object is created? That hardly violates any junior high school physics
principle.

The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not going to
give suffiient information.
Especially just waving a gadget over it.
Even when you scan a bit of paper it has to be laid out flat and kept
still during the process.
And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of the
screw inside the wrench is determined.
There IS only one way. By dis-assembly.

As for the female thread, as someone else said that can't be scanned
it has to be deduced. By human intervention.

Hence it's ********.
And if one bit is ********, it casts doubt over the remainder.
(Especially that gearbox).

"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. *There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

Do you not actually *read* what people write in response to your posts
or are you just being a troll trying to drag us all down into the
dark, dank abyss of usenet?

Twice, not once, but *twice*, *I have posted that the operator has the
ability to manipulate the image. I have also pointed out that the
internal threads are the exact opposite of the external threads so
that they are easliy reproduced by the CAD/CAM system.

Watch the Cerec video I posted the link to. It shows that the
"scanning" process is a bit more complicated than just waving a wand
over the object.

Are you sticking to your assertion that it's not possible because they
edited the video for time and cut out the parts where the scanning
could have taken an hour and the image manipulation even longer? If
that's your reasoning, then I guess you would say that *any* process
shown on a video that does not detail ever single piece of process
minutia is a crock.

If you saw a video of plane taking off in NY and landing in London
would you call it a fake because the video didn't show the entire 7
hour flight over the ocean?

*"The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not
going to give suffiient information"

Why do you keep insisting on posting points that don't make any sense?
Whoever said that the scanning was done from only one side? Oh
wait...I get it. They didn't show you the complete scanning process,
so therefore they must not have done anything else than what was shown
in the video. Just like the plane that couldn't have made it to London
because you didn't see it fly across the ocean.

Do youself (and us) a favor. It'll help..really:

Go to ZCorp site and watch the webcast on their 3-D scanner. I believe
it will fill in the missing pieces so that you have won't have to put
forth any effort to imagine it in your own mind.

http://www.zcorp.com/en/forms/Watch+...e+3D+Sc...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I knew it was a lie when he lifted a complete wrench from the box of
"dust".
If he had the four separate componets to assemble then maybe I would
have believed it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's another site, an independent site in fact, listing various 3D
printing technologies, that mentions the ability to print moving
parts:

http://cloudfab.com/fab_facts

On Jul 8, 8:03*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 8, 2:22*pm, harry wrote:





On Jul 8, 3:51*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jul 8, 3:30*am, harry wrote:

On Jul 8, 3:57*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*harry wrote:
Never seen it because it don't exist.

Attempting to save face by stubbornly clinging to your ignorance is
usually counterproductive. My ego takes a boot to the ass every time I
stand corrected, but it's better than the alternative.

What exactly to you find so preposterous? That machines exist which can
deposit thin layers of material, one atop the other, until a solid
object is created? That hardly violates any junior high school physics
principle.

The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not going to
give suffiient information.
Especially just waving a gadget over it.
Even when you scan a bit of paper it has to be laid out flat and kept
still during the process.
And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of the
screw inside the wrench is determined.
There IS only one way. By dis-assembly.

As for the female thread, as someone else said that can't be scanned
it has to be deduced. By human intervention.

Hence it's ********.
And if one bit is ********, it casts doubt over the remainder.
(Especially that gearbox).

"And you still have given me no explanation of how the thread of
the screw inside the wrench is determined. *There IS only one way. By
dis-assembly."

Do you not actually *read* what people write in response to your posts
or are you just being a troll trying to drag us all down into the
dark, dank abyss of usenet?

Twice, not once, but *twice*, *I have posted that the operator has the
ability to manipulate the image. I have also pointed out that the
internal threads are the exact opposite of the external threads so
that they are easliy reproduced by the CAD/CAM system.

Watch the Cerec video I posted the link to. It shows that the
"scanning" process is a bit more complicated than just waving a wand
over the object.

Are you sticking to your assertion that it's not possible because they
edited the video for time and cut out the parts where the scanning
could have taken an hour and the image manipulation even longer? If
that's your reasoning, then I guess you would say that *any* process
shown on a video that does not detail ever single piece of process
minutia is a crock.

If you saw a video of plane taking off in NY and landing in London
would you call it a fake because the video didn't show the entire 7
hour flight over the ocean?

*"The point is that "scanning" an object from one side is not
going to give suffiient information"

Why do you keep insisting on posting points that don't make any sense?
Whoever said that the scanning was done from only one side? Oh
wait...I get it. They didn't show you the complete scanning process,
so therefore they must not have done anything else than what was shown
in the video. Just like the plane that couldn't have made it to London
because you didn't see it fly across the ocean.

Do youself (and us) a favor. It'll help..really:

Go to ZCorp site and watch the webcast on their 3-D scanner. I believe
it will fill in the missing pieces so that you have won't have to put
forth any effort to imagine it in your own mind.

http://www.zcorp.com/en/forms/Watch+...D+Sc....quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I knew it was a lie when he lifted a complete wrench from the box of
"dust".
If he had the four separate componets to assemble then maybe I would
have believed it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's another site, an independent site in fact, listing various 3D
printing technologies, that mentions the ability to print moving
parts:

http://cloudfab.com/fab_facts- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The very last one says "moving parts are possible". But not assembled
moving parts.
Non mentions scanning as a source for the design.
Many say fragile and poor surface finish.
None mention a complete mutli part, multi colour object manufactured
in a box of dust.

So I still say the Youtube video is ********.

On Jul 8, 8:27*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:43:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

wrote:
You've got more patience than I do with our idiot English friend. I
don't think Harry's ever actually seen a crescent wrench. If he doesn't
have his own, he could take a look at the video around the 9-12 second
mark and they show a closeup of the wrench. Not much hidden about the
thread mechanism. It isn't "inside" the wrench at all.

I feel the need to help the less fortunate amongst us...it's just part
of my nature. ;-)

_The 3-D printer's software precisely controls heating and cooling
cycles needed to keep the cocoa in shape_

"...Using new digital technology, a printer designed by researchers in
England allows you to create your own designs on a computer and
reproduce them physically in three dimensional form in chocolate.
Building the chocolates up layer by layer, the 3-D printer uses
special software that navigates the precise heating and cooling cycles
needed to produce intricate cocoa sculptures. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43647615/ns/technology_and_science-innova...

England? *ENGLAND??! *Say it ain't so.

Heh Heh. A useless piece of technology. My wife can make fancy
chocolate cakes with a few tools costing a few £s. I bet she can
design and make one in half the time too.

Still, all been an interesting discussion. I have learnt a few things
I didn't know.
All information is good.

In article
,
harry wrote:

I have refused to learn a few things I didn't know.
All information I didn't already know is ********.

Whatever you say, Harry.

On Jul 9, 5:53*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
I have refused to learn a few things I didn't know.
All information I didn't already know is ********.

Whatever you say, Harry.

Taken to editing then if you can't win?