User talk:Rapatan

From RepRap
Revision as of 10:23, 22 May 2014 by DavidCary (talk | contribs) (Is there a better way to make this information more readable: new section)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Rapatan any chance you could upload the eagle files to go along with your Pololu / Arudino Mega shield

Welcome

Dear Rapatan,

Welcome to RepRap.

Wow, the MetalicaRap looks pretty amazing. Thank you for telling us about it. I can see that a person could make some amazing stuff with it. --DavidCary 02:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

processes

The Discussion of Advantages and Disadvantages of different Tool head processes. looks very useful. I keep thinking that a page describing various potential RepRap fabrication processes already exists somewhere, but perhaps I am mis-remembering materials (potential materials) and Automated Circuitry Making (potential PCB fabrication processes) -- which are related but not quite the same.

Would you mind if I made it easier for people to link to the page you created? I want to change the name to something short and easy to link, like fabrication processes, and to convert the current name to a subtitle.

Thank you for answering some questions I had about EBM on that page.

Alas, well-meaning Wiki edits and computer auto-renumbering often makes "see (1) below" and "see (2) below" quickly meaningless or misleading. I find "Harvard referencing" much more resistant to this kind of accidental mis-referencing. I made some guesses about what you meant and converted Discussion of Advantages and Disadvantages of different Tool head processes. to use "Wikipedia:Harvard referencing" -- please edit if I still got things switched around. --DavidCary 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think both links should exist, "tool head" and fabrication process as some people see a new developments with in the context of a new tool head, which can be loaded like any other tool head on an existing machine, eg Mendel tool head.

Fabrication process is not related to an existing machine and is much more broad and so a bit too broad for reprap site?. Their are lots of other broad sites out their on the web.

I think stay with tool head if you can not do both to one page,

thanks for looking after the site, IF you make contact with any Vacuum physicists or Metallurgist do pass on our details! Thanks for all the backup!

-- Rapatan

You are very welcome.

Many additive and subtractive processes can be done directly with a single toolhead on a RepRap -- such as fused filament fabrication, routing, milling, etc.

However, sometimes the easiest way(s) of fabricating a desired part from a desired material requires 2 toolheads, or a more indirect process. (A few such processes are already listed on the Materials/Appropriate Machines page.)

I agree that this site should stay focused on things that RepRap can do and things that people are trying to get RepRap to do, rather than becoming an encyclopedia of every kind of machine known to man.

I think the Materials/Appropriate Machines page is the one I was thinking about earlier. It is a list of materials, with each material having its own sub-list of processes/toolheads used to make parts from that material.

Should we merge those pages together, Discussion of Advantages and Disadvantages of different Tool head processes. and Materials/Appropriate Machines? --DavidCary 15:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


No I thinks not? , also Its important we don't mix up Conventional machining processes and Non Conventional / Advanced machining processes, otherwise we go encyclopedia mode. I think Tool head is pretty good focused mode at introduce topics centered around unconventional machining processes on reprap development platform.

Due to conventional machining processes involving cutting shearing and squeezing materials which are all high force activities,http://books.google.com/books?id=f7Uj1uTwkosC&lpg=PA19&dq=ebm%20advanced%20methods%20of%20machinin&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Reprap is not currently a high force capable machine, so any attempt at this will be severely limited / marginalized, so even if we don't explicitly say low force / unconventional processes we in practice do this. ( ie milling/drilling tool head is the only conventional listed Tool head of the 18 different listed FutureTool heads, and it can only process a few types of materials.)

If you have the time to create a table list of material to list of unconventional processes with a link if reprapable (the table could be in a form of data base) that might be useful ? Creating it including conventional machining methods is a huge job, liable to always being incomplete, or so massive its unusable, each industry ie aerospace, furniture , automobile , heating ventilation , has its own machining traditions they are not consistent!

So to avoid this you maybe have a "My machining/design/development blog for Conventional machining process" "My machining/design/development blog for unconventional / advanced machining process" ( and if you have too much spare time each of these could link to the materials to processes table unconventional machining page.) this is some where where their experience can be aired.

People are at very different levels of process understanding, yet within there own perspective they will have to make machining process choices, which they will have to believe in and wish to convince others of, but we will never be able to support all the different outlooks properly or completely, there is just too many paths that are possible, the blog style is good for supporting all the different convictions. So when one writes unfocused stuff I think its best to put in blogs.

Quote

" acting in the physical world leads to mis-coordination in ones actions which is experienced as a fragmenting personal experienced, In contrast Future Design Creations/ideas is a wholesome complete and comforting experience, their is not bridge between these two mental states, Wiki's should never attempt this impossibility as they just become unwieldy".

ie conflicting convictions should be expected and respected.

You could help me to help others feel confident in helping with the design of MetalicaRap, if you could manage the movement of their ideas; for example, from main design page ideas section and then after a few days be moved on to an appropriate discussion page or blog, I am sure you can judge whats appropriate

thanks kind regards rapatan

PS do chat with your network to search out metallurgists & High voltage engineers.

Request For RFC

Rapatan,

You mentioned you were looking for colleagues. Have you tried reprap-dev? (Since you're a reprap developer and all that.)

It's a very good place to look for other reprap developers ...  :D

Also, right now the 250-odd odd people in reprap-dev don't know that we've got an e-beam reprap cooking away. --Sebastien Bailard 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rapatan, are you going to put the details of how money is handled up on the metalica page? It's very important to be reasonably transparent when it comes to the money. hi yes we have a metalicarap account administrated by members of the committee at Labitat, with accounts issued each year. Any other suggestions?

Is there a better way to make this information more readable

Dear Rapatan,

Thank you very much for your work on MetalicaRap, and for sharing what you have learned on the MetalicaRap page.

Several people on the Talk:MetalicaRap page say it would be easier for people to read if that information were split up into several pages. (In general, I think Wikipedia:WP:TOOBIG has some good tips on splitting and combining pages).

I think it's an important topic, well worth 2 or more pages. But people still think I'm simply deleting a big chunk of their hard work. Is this temporary misunderstanding going to be inevitable whenever anyone divides a long page into 2 shorter page?

Is there any way for me to be more clear in my edit summaries and my talk page comments about what I'm doing when I divide a long page into 2 shorter pages?

Fortunately this wiki software makes it easy to see exactly what was removed from a page. I wish it was easier for other people to see that all of the text I cut from one page, I pasted to some other page, without anything being lost in the transfer. Is there a better way for people to see for themselves that no information was lost, without having to take my word for it? --DavidCary (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2014 (PDT)