On 28/04/2014 08:59 AM, scott wrote:
>> Presumably what you do is make a translucent layer which has inclusions
>> inside it that refract the light. So the outer surfaces are smooth, yet
>> you still get colour. Hard to see how you could do that cheaply though.
>
> Well you could just make it in two parts, so long as the two materials
> had different refractive indices. A bit like how a CD is made. Maybe you
> could use some photo-etch process on the first layer, borrowed from IC
> manufacturing?

That sounds quite plausible. Although probably not as cheap as just 
spraying some dye onto things, which is what we do now.

>> Has anybody invented a UV coating that actually works yet?
>
> Yes, people rely on them not to get skin cancer or go blind! Also the
> one on your car paint works. I'm sure you can find spectral response
> curves if you are interested.

Interesting. I was under the impression that UV-resistent coatings are 
just overly-optimistic marketing, and in reality none of these coatings 
actually work.

>> I'm sure things have changed. Just perhaps not as rapidly and
>> dramatically as the original revolution.
>
> You could argue that in some ways things are changing even faster now.
> Continuing with your plastics example, at the start hardly anyone used
> plastic and development was slow. Today plastic is used in almost
> everything and there are millions of different types. I'm sure if you
> plotted a graph of the number of new plastics invented against time it
> would be going upwards.

Really?

OK, really ancient plastics weren't very good. But the plastics I see 
today and the plastics I saw 30 years ago seem pretty much identical in 
every respect. What's changed?

>> This is very interesting. From what I can gather, the primary problem is
>> the absurd amount of computer power required.
>
> Indeed, it looks like they had to spend most of the effort trying to
> reduce the computing power needed whilst maintaining a decent image
> quality. Maybe in 5 or 10 years someone will come back to this
> technology and it will be able to take off.

Much like how we had CDs for decades before DVDs were invented. Clearly 
a lot of people *wanted* DVDs, but the necessary computer power was 
simply unavailable.

Then again, we're trying to simulate the interaction of billions of 
photons in a large 3-dimensional space. Maybe there are 
quantum-theoretical reasons why you can't do that any faster than the 
real world can? (At least, not without using a computer many times 
bigger than the real-world system it's trying to simulate!)

Post a reply to this message

> Interesting. I was under the impression that UV-resistent coatings are
> just overly-optimistic marketing, and in reality none of these coatings
> actually work.

One of the first image results from google gave this:

http://www.alpineastro.com/filters/uv_ir_cut_specs.htm

That's a pretty sharp fall-off below 400 nm. Whether it works or not is 
unquestionable, what is usually up for debate is whether it's actually 
useful on a camera. On skin, eyes or paint of course it works and is 
useful.

> OK, really ancient plastics weren't very good. But the plastics I see
> today and the plastics I saw 30 years ago seem pretty much identical in
> every respect. What's changed?

What you see today is them used in many places where they simply 
couldn't be used 30 years ago because plastics with the required 
performance didn't exist or were too expensive to manufacture. Car 
bumpers were metal or fibre-glass that got dented or cracked, pipes in 
your house were copper, anything involving even slightly corrosive 
chemicals was stainless steel. Today plastics can be and are used in all 
those places, ultimately making things cheaper.

Then there are all the things the consumer doesn't even notice. Like 
plastics that are easier to mould (more complicated shapes are possible 
to be made faster with finer details), possible to process in thinner 
films, flame retardants that are environmentally friendly, stronger and 
stiffer plastics that enable things to be made with less plastic for the 
same performance etc.

The software we use here for simulating the moulding of a plastic part 
(to make sure it will fill correctly and not leave any sink marks, weld 
lines etc) has a built-in database of plastic materials to choose from. 
There are over 10000 of them, and there are plenty not in the list. They 
have all been developed for a specific reason, and most of them recently 
(not 30 years ago).

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-04-28 13:30, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 28/04/2014 08:59 AM, scott wrote:
>>
>> You could argue that in some ways things are changing even faster now.
>> Continuing with your plastics example, at the start hardly anyone used
>> plastic and development was slow. Today plastic is used in almost
>> everything and there are millions of different types. I'm sure if you
>> plotted a graph of the number of new plastics invented against time it
>> would be going upwards.
>
> Really?
>
> OK, really ancient plastics weren't very good. But the plastics I see
> today and the plastics I saw 30 years ago seem pretty much identical in
> every respect. What's changed?
>

First, You have a tendency to be totally oblivious to what's around you. 
  You wouldn't see the changes if they hit you in the face (in fact, one 
of those changes is actually sitting right there on your nose!)

Second, you worked in the chemical industry for over 10 years.  I'm sure 
you're familiar with the names 3M, Dupont and BASF, just to name those. 
  Don't think for a second that these companies don't have large R&D 
depts that work round the clock trying to come up with newer compounds 
that are easier to work with, thereby reducing production costs, more 
resitant, less dangerous, or biodegradable, just to name those 
characterisitcs, thereby increasing their marketing value.  They're not 
just sitting there waiting for Nylon(tm), Teflon(tm) or Kevlar(tm) 
royalties to pad their bank accounts.

Many of these plastics will have special medical or industrial 
applications, but here are a few examples of everyday uses that you may 
have seen:

Have you noticed how nowadays most eye glasses are made of plastic? 
Clear plastics with higher IOR (sorry for getting slightly on-topic for 
P.O-T) than glass were unheard of 30 years ago.  The progresses made in 
the domain of contact lenses is even more impressive than that of 
conventional glass lenses.

The same goes for the plastic covers on most car headlights.  The 
average human doesn't often stop to admire the complexity of a car's 
tail lights, - unless you're stopped behind a Lamborghini at a stop 
light - but there's been tremendous developments made in that area, too.

I know you don't have kids, but the plastics used in baby bottles and 
toys have also changed a lot in the last 10 years, due to various "Won't 
anyone think of the children?!?!!!?" reasons.

The "technical" garment industry has also greatly benefited from these 
new polymers.  You're a skier, so you've most certainly seen the 
74732327523 tags that are sewn or attached on a new ski jacket or 
gloves, touting the amazing breathability, yet still impermeable, 
feather light, yet warm as a mammoth pelt, machine washable, yet won't 
fade properties these clothes now offer.

> Then again, we're trying to simulate the interaction of billions of
> photons in a large 3-dimensional space. Maybe there are
> quantum-theoretical reasons why you can't do that any faster than the
> real world can? (At least, not without using a computer many times
> bigger than the real-world system it's trying to simulate!)

To perfectly emulate it, we'd need at least one processor per photon, 
able to do all the physics calculations and share Heisenberg-principle 
violating amounts of information with other processors, in real-time.  I 
think Slatibartfast was on the right track!

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

> OK, really ancient plastics weren't very good. But the plastics I see
> today and the plastics I saw 30 years ago seem pretty much identical in
> every respect. What's changed?

Since Francois mentioned 3M, that reminded me they make lots of 
*plastic* optical films that are used in your mobile phone to improve 
brightness, viewing angle and sunlight readability. Another area that 
has been continuously improving over the last decade and will continue 
to, but which most consumers wouldn't know about.

Or surely you've heard about 3D printers recently? The materials they 
use (the professional ones, not the hobby ones) are state-of-the-art 
polymers to give the final piece properties as close as possible to 
traditional injection moulded plastics. It's not like those materials 
existed 30 years ago.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/04/2014 9:23 AM, scott wrote:
> What you see today is them used in many places where they simply
> couldn't be used 30 years ago because plastics with the required
> performance didn't exist or were too expensive to manufacture. Car
> bumpers were metal or fibre-glass that got dented or cracked, pipes in
> your house were copper,

Go back another twenty years and they would be mostly lead popes. :-(


> Then there are all the things the consumer doesn't even notice. Like
> plastics that are easier to mould (more complicated shapes are possible
> to be made faster with finer details), possible to process in thinner
> films, flame retardants that are environmentally friendly, stronger and
> stiffer plastics that enable things to be made with less plastic for the
> same performance etc.

You did not mention easier to join and repair. No soldering and the 
compression joints are barely tighter than finger tight. Small Stillsons 
or pipe wrenches are all you need.

You don't often here anyone or anything being described as plastic in a 
derogatory way, nowadays. The image has changed.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/04/2014 9:09 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
> Go back another twenty years and they would be mostly lead popes.

I think I meant pipes. Lead pipes not lead Popes. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-4-2014 22:19, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/04/2014 9:09 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Go back another twenty years and they would be mostly lead popes.
>
> I think I meant pipes. Lead pipes not lead Popes. :-)
>

Somehow, those /lead popes/ trigger my imagination... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> Go back another twenty years and they would be mostly lead popes. :-(

That's a good one :-)

> You did not mention easier to join and repair. No soldering and the
> compression joints are barely tighter than finger tight. Small Stillsons
> or pipe wrenches are all you need.

Two more. No annoying metal banging noises when the heating turns on or 
off (light sleepers can have the heating come on before they wake up). 
And because the pipes are somewhat bendy you can move things about 
without having to disconnect pipes. Painting behind my radiators is 
easy, I can just lift them off, rotate through 90 degrees and rest them 
on a bucket or something, no plumbing needed.

Post a reply to this message

On 2014-04-24 14:32, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Andy has also assured me that iPads, Kindles, Nooks, and the various
> android-based thingamajigs weren't tablets at all, because tablets were
> 2 inch thick laptops that weigh 20lbs and on which you write with a
> Palm-Pilot stylus.

Hear, hear!  Well, augmenting the specifications a little, but I concur 
that these newfangled touch-only widgets aren't REAL tablets...my 
current dream machine is the Fujitsu Stylistic Q584.  2560x1600 screen, 
10.1"x7.12"x0.39" with proper Wacom pen input, weighs 1.4 lbs.

...oh, and it has loads of other bells and whistles, if you're into 
those things.  But dat display...over four times the resolution of my 
Fujitsu Lifebook (which, at six years old, is rather closer to your 
referred attributes, ahem), in a smaller area.  And it's less than a 
thousand dollars!

Mind, the Q584's specs are rather unusual and extravagant; most 
pen-input tablets are still poking around the 1280x800 neighbourhood.

Also, re. OP:  It's the future.  I was promised flying cars!  But I 
don't see any.  Why?  WHY?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-04-29 10:21, scott a écrit :
>> OK, really ancient plastics weren't very good. But the plastics I see
>> today and the plastics I saw 30 years ago seem pretty much identical in
>> every respect. What's changed?
>
> Since Francois mentioned 3M, that reminded me they make lots of
> *plastic* optical films that are used in your mobile phone to improve
> brightness, viewing angle and sunlight readability. Another area that
> has been continuously improving over the last decade and will continue
> to, but which most consumers wouldn't know about.
>
> Or surely you've heard about 3D printers recently? The materials they
> use (the professional ones, not the hobby ones) are state-of-the-art
> polymers to give the final piece properties as close as possible to
> traditional injection moulded plastics. It's not like those materials
> existed 30 years ago.
>

At this point, this becomes obligatory:

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

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 30/04/2014 2:33 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> At this point, this becomes obligatory:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxihhBzCjk

Kudos for dredging up that connection. :-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On 30/04/2014 8:14 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 29-4-2014 22:19, Stephen wrote:
>> On 29/04/2014 9:09 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> Go back another twenty years and they would be mostly lead popes.
>>
>> I think I meant pipes. Lead pipes not lead Popes. :-)
>>
>
> Somehow, those /lead popes/ trigger my imagination... :-)
>
> Thomas

Edgar Allan Poe, anyone? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On 30/04/2014 8:40 AM, scott wrote:

>
> Two more. No annoying metal banging noises when the heating turns on or
> off (light sleepers can have the heating come on before they wake up).
> And because the pipes are somewhat bendy you can move things about
> without having to disconnect pipes. Painting behind my radiators is
> easy, I can just lift them off, rotate through 90 degrees and rest them
> on a bucket or something, no plumbing needed.
>

I've never heard of plastic piping for radiators. O_O

The flexibility of plastic piping is great. I had to do some pipework 
when I worked offshore. 1/4", 3/8" and 1/2" stainless steel. You had to 
be very accurate with your measurements. It looks better, though.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

> I've never heard of plastic piping for radiators. O_O

Nor had I until I moved into a house built in this century! The pipes 
are on 90 degree exit from the bottom corners of the radiator and bend 
back behind in to the centre and through a hole in the wall, it's all 
very neat with virtually no pipes visible (and no annoying pipes going 
down through the floor).

> The flexibility of plastic piping is great. I had to do some pipework
> when I worked offshore. 1/4", 3/8" and 1/2" stainless steel. You had to
> be very accurate with your measurements. It looks better, though.

You can get chrome plated plastic covers to go over copper pipes, to 
match fancy bathroom radiators and that sort of thing :-) But I guess 
you were using stainless due to its corrosion resistance rather than its 
looks. The stuff we make here is mostly stainless too for the same 
reason, but we are gradually changing over to PEEK, I wonder if you can 
get PEEK pipes <quick google> yes of course you can, first hit is for 
off-shore applications!

Post a reply to this message

On 30-4-2014 20:51, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/04/2014 8:14 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 29-4-2014 22:19, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 29/04/2014 9:09 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Go back another twenty years and they would be mostly lead popes.
>>>
>>> I think I meant pipes. Lead pipes not lead Popes. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Somehow, those /lead popes/ trigger my imagination... :-)
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Edgar Allan Poe, anyone? ;-)
>
No not really Poe, although dark enough indeed. It combines to me more 
with what in Italy were called the /Years of Lead/ (anni di piombo).

Lead popes would suggest to me a period of oppressive religion. An 
interesting topic for an SF novel in a distopian world.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 29/04/2014 09:23 AM, scott wrote:
>> Interesting. I was under the impression that UV-resistent coatings are
>> just overly-optimistic marketing, and in reality none of these coatings
>> actually work.
>
> One of the first image results from google gave this:
>
> http://www.alpineastro.com/filters/uv_ir_cut_specs.htm
>
> That's a pretty sharp fall-off below 400 nm. Whether it works or not is
> unquestionable, what is usually up for debate is whether it's actually
> useful on a camera. On skin, eyes or paint of course it works and is
> useful.

That's a pretty sharp cuttoff. OTOH, from this scale you can't tell 
whether the filter still passes, say, 1% of the UV. 1% UV is presumably 
still easily enough to utterly destroy whatever is underneith. (E.g., a 
plastic coated in this stuff will get ruined in a few months rather than 
a few days.)

I am not a professional chemist, but as I understand it, UV just 
destroys absolutely everything it touches, and it's very hard to make it 
not do this.

> Then there are all the things the consumer doesn't even notice. Like
> plastics that are easier to mould (more complicated shapes are possible
> to be made faster with finer details), possible to process in thinner
> films, flame retardants that are environmentally friendly, stronger and
> stiffer plastics that enable things to be made with less plastic for the
> same performance etc.

So... essentially you're saying the only real change is that plastic is 
cheaper now?

And to think I was under the impression that plastic only exists in the 
*first* place because it's cheaper...

> The software we use here for simulating the moulding of a plastic part
> (to make sure it will fill correctly and not leave any sink marks, weld
> lines etc) has a built-in database of plastic materials to choose from.
> There are over 10000 of them, and there are plenty not in the list. They
> have all been developed for a specific reason, and most of them recently
> (not 30 years ago).

I knew there were at least 6 main plastic types. But 10,000? Really? I 
can imagine you could have 10,000 different compounds, with different 
additives in them to adjust how springy or brittle they are, etc. But 
10,000 fundamentally different molecules? Really?



Actually, I just thought of something. One thing we didn't have when I 
was a kid: oven bags. As in, plastic bags that you cook things inside. I 
still can't quite wrap my mind around how this works; most plastics melt 
if you pour boiling water on them, never mind heating them to *hundreds* 
of degrees...

(Also, if this plastic as such a high melting point, how do you mould it 
in the first place??)

Post a reply to this message

> Second, you worked in the chemical industry for over 10 years. I'm sure
> you're familiar with the names 3M, Dupont and BASF, just to name those.
> Don't think for a second that these companies don't have large R&D depts
> that work round the clock trying to come up with newer compounds

I was under the impression that 3M's main business is *manufacturing* 
plastics, not designing new ones. (Actually, I was under the impression 
that 3M manufactures finished products that have plastic _in_ them, but 
I guess they probably sell raw plastic to other people...)

> Have you noticed how nowadays most eye glasses are made of plastic?
> Clear plastics with higher IOR (sorry for getting slightly on-topic for
> P.O-T) than glass were unheard of 30 years ago. The progresses made in
> the domain of contact lenses is even more impressive than that of
> conventional glass lenses.

Really? I thought *all* transparent materials have an IOR different than 
air. As in, it's impossible to *avoid* this (e.g., if you wanted to make 
a kind of "invisible glass", you can't do it.)

> The "technical" garment industry has also greatly benefited from these
> new polymers. You're a skier, so you've most certainly seen the
> 74732327523 tags that are sewn or attached on a new ski jacket or
> gloves, touting the amazing breathability, yet still impermeable,
> feather light, yet warm as a mammoth pelt, machine washable, yet won't
> fade properties these clothes now offer.

I thought that all of those claims were radically exaggerated marketing, 
and that these materials are basically identical to what we had 40 years 
ago.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/04/2014 03:21 PM, scott wrote:
> Or surely you've heard about 3D printers recently? The materials they
> use (the professional ones, not the hobby ones) are state-of-the-art
> polymers to give the final piece properties as close as possible to
> traditional injection moulded plastics. It's not like those materials
> existed 30 years ago.

Granted I don't work in the manufacturing industry. But I would have 
expected that the market for rapid prototyping is utterly *tiny* 
compared to the market for actual finished goods.

Does anybody really use 3D printers much? I mean, I can imagine there 
are products for which this might be really useful, but if you're just 
making (for example) plastic sandwich boxes, do you really need to 
prototype that?

Also: I was given to believe that 3D printed objects have approximately 
the structural rigidity of jellybaby. It's strong enough to see if 
various printed parts will fit together right, but if you stare at it 
too hard you're gonna break it. But hey, it's only a *prototype*, right? 
It's not like the finished item will be made of the same gel...

Post a reply to this message

On 01/05/14 18:41, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Granted I don't work in the manufacturing industry. But I would have
> expected that the market for rapid prototyping is utterly *tiny*
> compared to the market for actual finished goods.
> 
> Does anybody really use 3D printers much? I mean, I can imagine there
> are products for which this might be really useful, but if you're just
> making (for example) plastic sandwich boxes, do you really need to
> prototype that?
> 
> Also: I was given to believe that 3D printed objects have approximately
> the structural rigidity of jellybaby. It's strong enough to see if
> various printed parts will fit together right, but if you stare at it
> too hard you're gonna break it. But hey, it's only a *prototype*, right?
> It's not like the finished item will be made of the same gel...

YABAMBA

-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 01/05/14 18:37, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that 3M's main business is *manufacturing*
> plastics, not designing new ones. (Actually, I was under the impression
> that 3M manufactures finished products that have plastic _in_ them, but
> I guess they probably sell raw plastic to other people...)
> 

YABAMBA

> 
> Really? I thought *all* transparent materials have an IOR different than
> air. As in, it's impossible to *avoid* this (e.g., if you wanted to make
> a kind of "invisible glass", you can't do it.)
> 

YABAMBA

> 
> I thought that all of those claims were radically exaggerated marketing,
> and that these materials are basically identical to what we had 40 years
> ago.

YABAMBA

Sorry Andy but it has to be said

John (recovering from his stroke)
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2014 19:41, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Does anybody really use 3D printers much?

My dentist.

>
> Also: I was given to believe that 3D printed objects have approximately
> the structural rigidity of jellybaby. It's strong enough to see if
> various printed parts will fit together right, but if you stare at it
> too hard you're gonna break it. But hey, it's only a *prototype*, right?
> It's not like the finished item will be made of the same gel...

My dentist makes bridges and crowns with a 3D printer, and the products 
are no jellybabies, thank God. :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> I was under the impression that 3M's main business is *manufacturing*
> plastics, not designing new ones.

It's both - if they didn't do the latter they would be no different to 
the other 10 million plastic manufacturing plants. If you've ever dealt 
with 3M (as a supplier for volume manufacturing) you would know they are 
not the cheapest, but they often have materials and technologies that 
nobody else has. This is their business model, it is not making 
bog-standard plastics cheaper than everyone else (they would never win 
this).

> (Actually, I was under the impression
> that 3M manufactures finished products that have plastic _in_ them, but
> I guess they probably sell raw plastic to other people...)

I don't think they do much of that, maybe for some specialised areas but 
I've never heard or seen anyone sourcing raw plastic from 3M.

> Really? I thought *all* transparent materials have an IOR different than
> air. As in, it's impossible to *avoid* this (e.g., if you wanted to make
> a kind of "invisible glass", you can't do it.)

You can create a cone structure on the surface of the material (with the 
points upwards so it's pointy to touch). Now so long as the size of the 
cones is smaller than the wavelength of light then you get a continuous 
smooth variation of IOR from the air to the solid. This prevents any 
reflections, so the glass looks invisible. I've seen prototypes of this 
and it really does look invisible (you can stick a patch of it on glass 
and it looks like someone cut a hole in the glass). The obvious problem 
with this is the tips of the cones wear off quite easily which starts to 
reduce the effect. Again, it's all about developing new materials and 
processes to achieve this kind of product.

There are other anti-reflection coatings already in use, with varying 
degrees of performance. One of them works by destructive interference 
and is used on glasses, outdoor displays etc, you can tell by the 
characteristic purple tint of the remaining reflection (it blocks green 
reflection mainly).

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2014 22:38, Doctor John wrote:
> On 01/05/14 18:41, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Granted I don't work in the manufacturing industry. But I would have
>> expected that the market for rapid prototyping is utterly *tiny*
>> compared to the market for actual finished goods.
>>
>> Does anybody really use 3D printers much? I mean, I can imagine there
>> are products for which this might be really useful, but if you're just
>> making (for example) plastic sandwich boxes, do you really need to
>> prototype that?
>>
>> Also: I was given to believe that 3D printed objects have approximately
>> the structural rigidity of jellybaby. It's strong enough to see if
>> various printed parts will fit together right, but if you stare at it
>> too hard you're gonna break it. But hey, it's only a *prototype*, right?
>> It's not like the finished item will be made of the same gel...
>
> YABAMBA

not sure what that acronym means but if it means something like GIYF or 
'why don't you just think before you post' or 'have you heard of the 
concept of newspapers and magazines', I agree.

Anyway, we use our 3D printers a lot in the hospital, e.g. to plan 
operations. Also, have a look at shapeways.com . Do you want plastic 
(several varieties) , sandstone, metals, or ceramic?


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is
active.
http://www.avast.com

Post a reply to this message

> That's a pretty sharp cuttoff. OTOH, from this scale you can't tell
> whether the filter still passes, say, 1% of the UV. 1% UV is presumably
> still easily enough to utterly destroy whatever is underneith. (E.g., a
> plastic coated in this stuff will get ruined in a few months rather than
> a few days.)

I don't think many dyes fade within a few days of sunlight exposure. A 
few months maybe, but then a 1% UV filter will allow them to last a few 
decades, which is actually useful for something like a car or a photo.

> So... essentially you're saying the only real change is that plastic is
> cheaper now?

Not really, what I'm saying is that the development of plastics and the 
processes that use them have allowed *products* to become cheaper. But 
that's pretty much the entire purpose of engineering, to make a product 
that meets all the requirements for as low a cost as possible. If you 
can come up with a new material (or a variant on an existing one) that 
allows an existing product to be made cheaper you will be collecting the 
$$$.

> I knew there were at least 6 main plastic types.

Correct, there are at least 6 :-) Here's a list of the common categories:

http://www.efunda.com/materials/polymers/history/history.cfm?list_order=name

There are about 40 there. If you click on each one it will give you a 
list of common grades, about 20 for each of the ones I clicked on. 
That's already 800 different grades without even considering various 
combinations of other additives to aid manufacturing or specific 
properties needed. My point is that if you plot all of these on a 
timeline you'll see that most have been developed fairly recently, it's 
not like there's no development in plastics.

> (Also, if this plastic as such a high melting point, how do you mould it
> in the first place??)

Make your manufacturing machinery from something with a higher melting 
point, say steel? How do they make the steel in the first place? :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 02/05/2014 11:53, andrel wrote:
>> YABAMBA
>
> not sure what that acronym means but if it means something like GIYF or
> 'why don't you just think before you post' or 'have you heard of the
> concept of newspapers and magazines', I agree.

Yet Another Bogus Assumption Made By Andy

:-)

John

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2014 15:49, Doctor John wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 11:53, andrel wrote:
>>> YABAMBA
>>
>> not sure what that acronym means but if it means something like GIYF or
>> 'why don't you just think before you post' or 'have you heard of the
>> concept of newspapers and magazines', I agree.
>
> Yet Another Bogus Assumption Made By Andy
>

yep, that sort of covers it.

I fear that this could become an often used acronym in this group.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is
active.
http://www.avast.com

Post a reply to this message

> Does anybody really use 3D printers much? I mean, I can imagine there
> are products for which this might be really useful, but if you're just
> making (for example) plastic sandwich boxes, do you really need to
> prototype that?

So you'd be confident enough that the sandwich box hinge and latching 
mechanism was going to work properly and not snap off, and that it would 
feel right, and the MD is not going to complain the box feels too 
flimsy, just by looking at CAD data on your screen and perhaps some 
simulations that tell you the stiffness is X N/mm at certain points and 
you need X N of force to open the latch? Confident enough to sign off 
$100000 for the tooling to be made? For the sake of $500 to get a few 
prototypes made up it's not worth it. FWIW I've *never* seen tooling get 
made exactly right first time, there is *always* something that needs to 
be fixed or changed, using prototypes just reduces the risk of any big 
(=expensive) errors.

> Also: I was given to believe that 3D printed objects have approximately
> the structural rigidity of jellybaby.

Did you miss the story a while back of the guy who made a functional 
*gun* from 3D printed parts? The whole point of professional 3D printed 
parts is that they match the performance of the real moulded plastic. 
FWIW here we put butanone at 6 bar into 3D printed parts without issue.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/05/2014 03:34 PM, scott wrote:
>> Does anybody really use 3D printers much? I mean, I can imagine there
>> are products for which this might be really useful, but if you're just
>> making (for example) plastic sandwich boxes, do you really need to
>> prototype that?
>
> So you'd be confident enough that the sandwich box hinge and latching
> mechanism was going to work properly and not snap off, and that it would
> feel right, and the MD is not going to complain the box feels too
> flimsy, just by looking at CAD data on your screen and perhaps some
> simulations that tell you the stiffness is X N/mm at certain points and
> you need X N of force to open the latch?

Given that a 3D prototype will be made of a totally different material 
with totally different properties, I'm not sure how having a prototype 
lets you check this.

> FWIW I've *never* seen tooling get
> made exactly right first time, there is *always* something that needs to
> be fixed or changed

Really? I find that quite surprising. (Then again, I don't work in this 
industry.) I had assumed that by now, making something trivial like a 
cube-shaped box would be easy. Of course, if you're making something 
complicated like the casing for a camera or something, that seems much 
harder to get right...

>> Also: I was given to believe that 3D printed objects have approximately
>> the structural rigidity of jellybaby.
>
> Did you miss the story a while back of the guy who made a functional
> *gun* from 3D printed parts? The whole point of professional 3D printed
> parts is that they match the performance of the real moulded plastic.
> FWIW here we put butanone at 6 bar into 3D printed parts without issue.

That's impressive, given that even "real moulded plastic" isn't strong 
enough to make a gun... They're made out of metal for a reason, after all.

Post a reply to this message

>> Really? I thought *all* transparent materials have an IOR different than
>> air. As in, it's impossible to *avoid* this (e.g., if you wanted to make
>> a kind of "invisible glass", you can't do it.)
>
> You can create a cone structure on the surface of the material (with the
> points upwards so it's pointy to touch). Now so long as the size of the
> cones is smaller than the wavelength of light then you get a continuous
> smooth variation of IOR from the air to the solid. This prevents any
> reflections, so the glass looks invisible.

That sounds absolutely trippy - and really expensive to manufacture. ;-)

> There are other anti-reflection coatings already in use, with varying
> degrees of performance. One of them works by destructive interference
> and is used on glasses, outdoor displays etc, you can tell by the
> characteristic purple tint of the remaining reflection (it blocks green
> reflection mainly).

Yeah, interference is wavelength-specific, so you can only make stuff 
non-reflective at one wavelength. I've seen Falstad. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 02/05/2014 19:26, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
> 
> That's impressive, given that even "real moulded plastic" isn't strong
> enough to make a gun... They're made out of metal for a reason, after all.

Only if you need to fire more than a few time. The bullet should be
metal, the percussing pin too, and maybe container of powder.
Everything else can be "consumable".

In our modern society, making things that last is so 19th century!

Post a reply to this message

>> That's impressive, given that even "real moulded plastic" isn't strong
>> enough to make a gun... They're made out of metal for a reason, after all.
>
> Only if you need to fire more than a few time.

I was going to say something about the heat melting the plastic. But 
really, the biggest problem is surely going to be that the charge will 
smash the plastic to shrapnel, killing whoever fires the gun...

> In our modern society, making things that last is so 19th century!

This makes me sad.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/05/2014 11:09 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> In our modern society, making things that last is so 19th century!
>
> This makes me sad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27253103


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/05/2014 11:31 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/05/2014 11:09 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> In our modern society, making things that last is so 19th century!
>>
>> This makes me sad.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27253103

So many people seem to think that when you buy something, getting the 
lowest possible price is the *only* thing that matters. Which is 
frustrating, because I'd actually prefer to pay more money for a quality 
product. But since that's currently unfashionable, nobody makes those 
anymore. (Or if they do, because so few people buy them, they're 
*severely* expensive. Manufacturing costs have to be split between a 
fewer number of buyers, and all that.) It's not even like buying a more 
expensive model even guarantees better quality anymore; anybody can take 
an inferior item and just slap a bigger price tag on it...

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-05-01 13:33, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :

> I knew there were at least 6 main plastic types.

No, there are two.  Thermosoftening and thermosetting plastics.  Each 
type has thousands of different molecules.


> But 10,000? Really?
 > I can imagine you could have 10,000 different compounds, with different
 > additives in them to adjust how springy or brittle they are, etc. But
 > 10,000 fundamentally different molecules? Really?

Not necessarily.  Take the simplest plastics, such polyethylene, which 
is just chains (called polymers) of ethylene molecules (called 
monomers).  Depending on the length of the chains, you will have 
different properties, hence different commercial applications.  LDPE and 
HDPE behave quite differently.

Also, if you alternate monomers in your chain, you will have different 
properties as well.  Nylon-4,6 behaves differently than Nylon-6,6 or 
Nylon-6,9.

Etc.

 > most plastics melt if you pour boiling water on them, never mind
 > heating them to *hundreds* of degrees...
>

YABAMBA.

The melting point of most plastics is above 250°C.  You *do* have access 
to Google, don't you?

> (Also, if this plastic as such a high melting point, how do you mould it
> in the first place??)

You realize the technology to melt metals - which have higher melting 
points than plastics - has existed for millennia.

Also, look into "creep".  You don't need to melt it to be able to shape 
it.  Just like a blacksmith doesn't have to melt iron into a liquid to 
make horseshoes or a sword.

Finally, you *must* have come across pots and pans that have plastic 
handles.  I'm sure these don't melt everytime you boil water.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-05-01 13:37, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> Second, you worked in the chemical industry for over 10 years. I'm sure
>> you're familiar with the names 3M, Dupont and BASF, just to name those.
>> Don't think for a second that these companies don't have large R&D depts
>> that work round the clock trying to come up with newer compounds
>
> I was under the impression that 3M's main business is *manufacturing*
> plastics, not designing new ones. (Actually, I was under the impression
> that 3M manufactures finished products that have plastic _in_ them, but
> I guess they probably sell raw plastic to other people...)
>
>> Have you noticed how nowadays most eye glasses are made of plastic?
>> Clear plastics with higher IOR (sorry for getting slightly on-topic for
>> P.O-T) than glass were unheard of 30 years ago. The progresses made in
>> the domain of contact lenses is even more impressive than that of
>> conventional glass lenses.
>
> Really? I thought *all* transparent materials have an IOR different than
> air. As in, it's impossible to *avoid* this (e.g., if you wanted to make
> a kind of "invisible glass", you can't do it.)
>

Where did air come from.  I mentioned GLASS?

>> The "technical" garment industry has also greatly benefited from these
>> new polymers. You're a skier, so you've most certainly seen the
>> 74732327523 tags that are sewn or attached on a new ski jacket or
>> gloves, touting the amazing breathability, yet still impermeable,
>> feather light, yet warm as a mammoth pelt, machine washable, yet won't
>> fade properties these clothes now offer.
>
> I thought that all of those claims were radically exaggerated marketing,
> and that these materials are basically identical to what we had 40 years
> ago.

Then you thought wrong.  Even if the marketing does tend to overstate 
their capabilities a bit.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-05-02 06:53, andrel a écrit :
> On 1-5-2014 22:38, Doctor John wrote:

>> YABAMBA
>
> not sure what that acronym means but if it means something like GIYF or
> 'why don't you just think before you post' or 'have you heard of the
> concept of newspapers and magazines', I agree.
>

Look earlier in the thread.  It means 
Yet-Another-Bogus-Assumption-Made-By-Andy.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 May 2014 16:31:42 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 2-5-2014 15:49, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 02/05/2014 11:53, andrel wrote:
>>>> YABAMBA
>>>
>>> not sure what that acronym means but if it means something like GIYF
>>> or 'why don't you just think before you post' or 'have you heard of
>>> the concept of newspapers and magazines', I agree.
>>
>> Yet Another Bogus Assumption Made By Andy
>>
>>
> yep, that sort of covers it.
> 
> I fear that this could become an often used acronym in this group.

I don't know that I fear that, myself.  I can see its utility in 
discussion - a time saving device. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 05:30:12 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:

> On 2014-04-24 14:32, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Andy has also assured me that iPads, Kindles, Nooks, and the various
>> android-based thingamajigs weren't tablets at all, because tablets were
>> 2 inch thick laptops that weigh 20lbs and on which you write with a
>> Palm-Pilot stylus.
> 
> Hear, hear!  Well, augmenting the specifications a little, but I concur
> that these newfangled touch-only widgets aren't REAL tablets...my
> current dream machine is the Fujitsu Stylistic Q584.  2560x1600 screen,
> 10.1"x7.12"x0.39" with proper Wacom pen input, weighs 1.4 lbs.

But surely that's impossible.  Or hideously expensive.  Quite possibly 
both at the same time. ;)

> ...oh, and it has loads of other bells and whistles, if you're into
> those things.  But dat display...over four times the resolution of my
> Fujitsu Lifebook (which, at six years old, is rather closer to your
> referred attributes, ahem), in a smaller area.  And it's less than a
> thousand dollars!
> 
> Mind, the Q584's specs are rather unusual and extravagant; most
> pen-input tablets are still poking around the 1280x800 neighbourhood.

In all seriousness, that sounds like a pretty nice piece of kit.

> Also, re. OP:  It's the future.  I was promised flying cars!  But I
> don't see any.  Why?  WHY?

Have you seen how people drive? Do you REALLY want that in 3D? ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

> Given that a 3D prototype will be made of a totally different material
> with totally different properties, I'm not sure how having a prototype
> lets you check this.

As I said, the materials used for 3D prototypes are designed to mimic 
real plastics. The properties are very similar (especially for stiffness).

>> FWIW I've *never* seen tooling get
>> made exactly right first time, there is *always* something that needs to
>> be fixed or changed
>
> Really? I find that quite surprising. (Then again, I don't work in this
> industry.) I had assumed that by now, making something trivial like a
> cube-shaped box would be easy.

Surprisingly something simple like a cube shaped box is problematic for 
a variety of reasons. The sides are large, flat and almost perpendicular 
to base (or at least you want them to be). This makes it much more 
likely the part gets stuck in the tool, parts stuck in tools = $$$. 
Plastic shrinks as it cools, large flat surfaces = twisted and warped 
parts. Usually you would put supporting ribs on the inside, but in a box 
I guess you want to actually use the space inside for storing things, so 
you are a bit limited what you can do.

> That's impressive, given that even "real moulded plastic" isn't strong
> enough to make a gun... They're made out of metal for a reason, after all.

Well it's clearly strong enough to fire at least a few rounds (there's a 
video on youtube I think). And if you're the sort of person who wants to 
try and get a gun through some security checkpoint then you probably 
don't mind that it won't be a long lasting reliable weapon.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/05/2014 04:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >Also, re. OP:  It's the future.  I was promised flying cars!  But I
>> >don't see any.  Why?  WHY?
> Have you seen how people drive? Do you REALLY want that in 3D?;)

I certainly don't. Too many idiots on the roads if they took to the 
skies I would take to my bed. Even then you never know who might drop in 
for tea. ;-)

I have been reading a lot of ancient SF recently. The thing that almost 
everyone got wrong is mobile phones. It is jarring when the hero has to 
stop by a drug store just to phone someone.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 10/05/2014 11:52, Stephen nous fit lire :
> On 06/05/2014 04:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >Also, re. OP:  It's the future.  I was promised flying cars!  But I
>>> >don't see any.  Why?  WHY?
>> Have you seen how people drive? Do you REALLY want that in 3D?;)
> 
> I certainly don't. Too many idiots on the roads if they took to the
> skies I would take to my bed. Even then you never know who might drop in
> for tea. ;-)
> 
> I have been reading a lot of ancient SF recently. The thing that almost
> everyone got wrong is mobile phones. It is jarring when the hero has to
> stop by a drug store just to phone someone.
> 
Have a look at the Shadowrun RPG (as book for ambiance)... targeted
advertisement as you pass by every shop is coming to your mobile phone.
And it is going to be as hostile as it sound. Next, augmented reality to
hit your glass and audio device... still for aggressive advertisements.

Along the revision/Edition, the matrix changed a bit (connection was
more difficult in first edition, wifi is everywhere in latests).

On another hand, triple-A security blocks are emerging too. Some started
with "elderly-only" town (forbidden to less than ~60 years old alone),
but private blocks are not so far.

Arcology are not yet, unless you look at Millenium tower (tokyo,
project), or Dubai... yep, they are coming. Not sure it will not split
population too.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/05/2014 11:59, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> >I have been reading a lot of ancient SF recently. The thing that almost
>> >everyone got wrong is mobile phones. It is jarring when the hero has to
>> >stop by a drug store just to phone someone.
>> >
> Have a look at the Shadowrun RPG (as book for ambiance)... targeted
> advertisement as you pass by every shop is coming to your mobile phone.
> And it is going to be as hostile as it sound. Next, augmented reality to
> hit your glass and audio device... still for aggressive advertisements.
>

Now that is familiar from more more modern fiction. (Currently reading 
Sinister Barrier (Sinister Barrier 1939, by Eric Frank Russell.)
I am not really into games (I'm pretty poor at playing them.) although I 
have been playing the Beta of Elite Dangerous. It is just a shoot them 
up in your flying saucer ATM. But it has encouraged be to start Pov-ing 
after about a year off.


> Along the revision/Edition, the matrix changed a bit (connection was
> more difficult in first edition, wifi is everywhere in latests).
>

"as above, so below" or art imitates life.

> On another hand, triple-A security blocks are emerging too. Some started
> with "elderly-only" town (forbidden to less than ~60 years old alone),
> but private blocks are not so far.
>

Sounds fine to me. ;-)

> Arcology are not yet, unless you look at Millenium tower (tokyo,
> project), or Dubai... yep, they are coming. Not sure it will not split population
too.

I suppose so (Make room! Make room! by Harry Harrison.)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On 2014-05-10 14:51, Stephen wrote:
> I am not really into games (I'm pretty poor at playing them.) although I
> have been playing the Beta of Elite Dangerous. It is just a shoot them
> up in your flying saucer ATM.

Lucky duck.  I'm having to wait for final release.  Looking forward to 
it, though.

--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 May 2014 10:52:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/05/2014 04:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >Also, re. OP:  It's the future.  I was promised flying cars!  But I
>>> >don't see any.  Why?  WHY?
>> Have you seen how people drive? Do you REALLY want that in 3D?;)
> 
> I certainly don't. Too many idiots on the roads if they took to the
> skies I would take to my bed. Even then you never know who might drop in
> for tea. ;-)

:)

> I have been reading a lot of ancient SF recently. The thing that almost
> everyone got wrong is mobile phones. It is jarring when the hero has to
> stop by a drug store just to phone someone.

Yeah, that really is something that is a sign of the times (as it were).

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 10/05/2014 23:35, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-05-10 14:51, Stephen wrote:
>> I am not really into games (I'm pretty poor at playing them.) although I
>> have been playing the Beta of Elite Dangerous. It is just a shoot them
>> up in your flying saucer ATM.
>
> Lucky duck.  I'm having to wait for final release.  Looking forward to
> it, though.
>

I was feeling altruistic at the time. :-)

You are not missing much ATM. It is just shooting at things and them 
shooting back, so far. I'm having to learn how to fly so it is slow.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/05/2014 01:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I have been reading a lot of ancient SF recently. The thing that almost
>> >everyone got wrong is mobile phones. It is jarring when the hero has to
>> >stop by a drug store just to phone someone.
> Yeah, that really is something that is a sign of the times (as it were).

I find it strange that whilst the authors could imaging all sorts of 
marvellous futures. Excepting Dick Tracy's walkie talkie wristwatch it 
seemed to be unimaginable.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On 11-5-2014 12:09, Stephen wrote:
> I find it strange that whilst the authors could imaging all sorts of
> marvellous futures. Excepting Dick Tracy's walkie talkie wristwatch it
> seemed to be unimaginable.
>
Albert Robida (http://www.robida.info/index.html) anticipated at least 
flying cars, and... Skype ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/05/2014 15:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 11-5-2014 12:09, Stephen wrote:
>> I find it strange that whilst the authors could imaging all sorts of
>> marvellous futures. Excepting Dick Tracy's walkie talkie wristwatch it
>> seemed to be unimaginable.
>>
> Albert Robida (http://www.robida.info/index.html) anticipated at least
> flying cars, and... Skype ;-)
>

OMG! The music. :-(

But how interesting. :-)
(The man and his works.)
Of course this is probably the "exception that proves the rule". Unless 
English speakers just don't have the imagination. ^_^

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 May 2014 15:48:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11/05/2014 15:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 11-5-2014 12:09, Stephen wrote:
>>> I find it strange that whilst the authors could imaging all sorts of
>>> marvellous futures. Excepting Dick Tracy's walkie talkie wristwatch it
>>> seemed to be unimaginable.
>>>
>> Albert Robida (http://www.robida.info/index.html) anticipated at least
>> flying cars, and... Skype ;-)
>>
>>
> OMG! The music. :-(
> 
> But how interesting. :-)
> (The man and his works.)
> Of course this is probably the "exception that proves the rule". Unless
> English speakers just don't have the imagination. ^_^

LOL



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 10/05/2014 23:35, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-05-10 14:51, Stephen wrote:
>> I am not really into games (I'm pretty poor at playing them.) although I
>> have been playing the Beta of Elite Dangerous. It is just a shoot them
>> up in your flying saucer ATM.
>
> Lucky duck.  I'm having to wait for final release.  Looking forward to
> it, though.
>

Here is a preview from the latest news letter.
Not being a gamer I have nothing to compare it with but I am quite 
impressed with the graphics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGf9OPot8Sc

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message