Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Santa Claus Machines (was Re: Firearm Design)
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 22:52:03 -0700
From: "Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*********.com>
> You don't "stamp out" anything from a CAM machine- like any milling
> machine, they are fairly slow. Thier cutting passes can be optimized, but
> you can only push a spinning cutter through metal so fast. Similar "one
> off" techniques (like laser sintering) also tend to be as slow or slower.

Actually I was referring to Computer-Aided Design/Computer Aided
Manufacturing, not just Milling.

My idea is that with the existance of nanofacs and that many weapons are
constructed with large amounts of poymers they could literally have sections
injection molded (or similar). The nanofacs can build the fiddly parts.

> To literally "stamp out" metal parts quickly, well, you need to stamp
> them out, either by hot or cold forging. That involves custom shaped
impact
> forms, genrally a series of them that gradually produce the object you
want
> from basic metal stock. Those cost a lot to make, and aren't worth it for
> small runs.

Sounds good to me.

> During production, if you do a few guns at a time all in one stamping
> machine, you waste time changing impact forms. Better to have one stamp
for
> each form, and move the guns between machines. And there you have it, an
> assembly line.

Ok.

> Sure, the technology will get more common and inexpensive, but that
> doesn't mean its ever going to be the approipriate technology fo mass
> production. Better to use the CAM mill to make the componants of a
"dumb"
> assembly line that can really churn out product- which is what they do
> today, more or less.

I was thinking a bit more supertech then what we have now with santa claus
machines. Advanced polyers and nanofacs remove a lot of the noted problems
with small-time "press houses."

> What CAM type technologies does is reduce product development cycles
and
> early production hurdles. It doesn't eliminate economies of scale, but it
> MIGHT reduce the cost of small production to the point where somebody
finds
> it worth it to pay the extra money to get a product that is more exactly
> what they want.

Hmm, too bad there are no figs for the actual production capability of the
nanofacs in Man and Machine...

> Mongoose

Thanks for responding. I stand corrected on several issues.

Ken
---------------------------
There's a war out there, old friend, a world war. And it's not about who's
got the most bullets, it's about who controls the information. What we see
and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information!
Cosmo, 'Sneakers'
Message no. 2
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Santa Claus Machines (was Re: Firearm Design)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:44:03 -0500
From: Tzeentch <tzeentch666@*********.net>

:> You don't "stamp out" anything from a CAM machine- like any milling
:> machine, they are fairly slow. Thier cutting passes can be optimized,
but
:> you can only push a spinning cutter through metal so fast. Similar "one
:> off" techniques (like laser sintering) also tend to be as slow or slower.
:
:Actually I was referring to Computer-Aided Design/Computer Aided
:Manufacturing, not just Milling.

Besies milling (and related machining tasks), the only computer
facitlited manufacturing I can see for guns is welding, assembly, finishing,
and packaging. All of those are easy to handle with TODAYS machinery, and
are cheaper when done in bulk on time tested designs.

:My idea is that with the existance of nanofacs and that many weapons are
:constructed with large amounts of poymers they could literally have
sections
:injection molded (or similar). The nanofacs can build the fiddly parts.


Nano-maching is still really rare, according to M&M. Besides, if some
subsisiady in china can churn out guns on completley depreciated 20th
century machines, why waste thier SOTA nano-fac doing it? Save the nenites
for stuf where its needed. Its not like nano-facitlites run themselves-
whatever you do in one has to have a high margin, to justify its
consruction, maintentnace, and trained personel.
I know a few guys who make platics molds. Those things START at 50K$,
and can go up into a half million! Now, THOSE might be worth nano-assembly,
but the point stands that plastic goods have definate economy of scale- they
are almost the classic example of it, in fact.

:I was thinking a bit more supertech then what we have now with santa claus
:machines. Advanced polyers and nanofacs remove a lot of the noted problems
:with small-time "press houses."

As noted, advanced polymers are neither here nor there- any money the
little guy saves using them, the big guy probably saves double, by using
cheaper plastics in fancier (more expensive) molds. Nanofacs are not even
in the hands of small companies, and the big companies would sensibally
reserve them for high-margin goods. Why nano up a rifle, when you can spend
the same resources much more profitably?

:> What CAM type technologies does is reduce product development cycles
:and
:> early production hurdles. It doesn't eliminate economies of scale, but
it
:> MIGHT reduce the cost of small production to the point where somebody
:finds
:> it worth it to pay the extra money to get a product that is more exactly
:> what they want.
:
:Hmm, too bad there are no figs for the actual production capability of the
:nanofacs in Man and Machine...

No, but some basic research into nanotech theory gave me the impression
that it would be pretty slow when it comes to assembling macroscopic
objects. There's the simple limit of reaction speed / frequency, for one
thing. Even if not built up atom by atom (which I find unlikely- I'd think
for metal objects, it would be more of a sintering type operation), the
process isn't going to be as fast or cheap (per item) as mass casting /
forming / machining techniques, I'd think.

Mongoose


_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 3
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Santa Claus Machines (was Re: Firearm Design)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:53:25 -0700
From: "Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*********.com>
> Besies milling (and related machining tasks), the only computer
> facitlited manufacturing I can see for guns is welding, assembly,
finishing,
> and packaging. All of those are easy to handle with TODAYS machinery, and
> are cheaper when done in bulk on time tested designs.

I'm completely swayed.

Thanks for the response!

Ken
---------------------------
There's a war out there, old friend, a world war. And it's not about who's
got the most bullets, it's about who controls the information. What we see
and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information!
Cosmo, 'Sneakers'

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Santa Claus Machines (was Re: Firearm Design), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!