289
Elon Musk says 'we dug our own grave' with the Cybertruck as he warns Tesla faces enormous production challenges
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
289 points (86.0% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
13 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks for giving me more absurd examples. Your UV light is a 400nm wavelength or so. Or roughly 1/3rd a micron. The fucking wavelength of your curing light.
Now get outta here with your attempts at pretending that your $200 UV printer has the level of accuracy of three fucking wavelengths of the light it's using.
The size of the color red? That's 700nm wavelength, or 0.7 microns. Your resolution that you're printing here is no where close to the size of red-light photons.
Oh, so you don't know how light works either. Good grief man... light has a size and you're running up against the size limitation of the light itself. Especially because I know for a fact that these UV Printers are NOT using lasers, so you have no way to actually line up all the photons to hit the same location since their wavelengths are all unaligned.
In any case, car parts are not made at scales comparable to the wavelength of infrared light (ie: the "size" of a infrared-light photon).
Shocking narcissism, yet again.
You clearly have no intent to learn from your mistakes and pollute your entire argument with ad hominem and every other logical fallacy in the book - all wrapped up with a bow of dismissal of the original premise.
Oh, and by the way, light is both a particle and a wave. "light has a size" - indeed, the wave of light we aren't talking about has a size - called wavelength. Don't be afraid to use the most accurate terminology for your irrelevant responses! The wavelength has zero influence on the dimensions of the final product, as any wavelength more than a couple nm out of spec won't cure the resin at all, and there will be no object to measure. I think you know that and are just trying to win an argument by talking over the heads of the average readers on here - which doesn't help your case.
It's extremely likely you legitimately have a personality disorder, and are capable of much more if you clean up your act.
Wavelength has a very direct impact on the resolution you can print because it's an optical system. Under perfect conditions, it'll be diffraction limited, which is typically anywhere from several hundred nm to tens of microns. That's an ideal system though, you're actually going to be getting a dimensional accuracy somewhat above that in practice, probably tens to hundreds of um.
Please make sure Form Labs, and the rest of the companies I have worked for, are aware of how wrong their engineers are.
I'm not sure what the obsession is with arguing against the list of objective facts I have provided - each argument peeling away into a deeper and more obvious lack of understanding...
Please feel free to run anything other than the recommended wavelength of UV light through a photoreactive polymer resin and let me know the dimensions of your resulting print. Remember to do it twice, so you can compare the results - the point of this discussion. Repeatable results, to 1 micron of accuracy.
(your repeatable result will be a measurement of thin air, as your print will not cure - but feel free to try, as I've said.)
I couldn't find official dimensional accuracy specs for any formlabs machines except the 1, which lists 150um. Perhaps you're talking about the 3, which has a specified minimum spot size of 85um according to this paper. Where did they claim micron dimensional accuracy?
I don't care what the specs of the printer are. This is a discussion about repeatability.
I can get sub micron repeatability out of playdough with the right extruder and hardener. Every single one of you has been arguing from an entirely false premise to begin with.