Jim,
>I also do not object to biological methods being placed in what is
>presently a category of their own.
Just for clarification I want to point out that "accretive" fabbing,
such as biological cell division, is a subcategory within the general class
of additive processes. All fabbing is either additive, subtractive,
formative, or a hybrid of those three.
>> challenge in utilizing something like this is in achieving control of the
>> geometrical changes that occur.
>
>Yes. Though precise final dimensions are not essential, versatile
>control over the part's topology is essential:
That is another useful point you make. Our DNA programming does not seem
to specifiy the precise geometry of our bodies, but rather general
inclinations of shape, size, and structure. The acutal geometries of our
bodies ends up depending on other things, such as nutrition and physical
activity. In the case of a tree, it grows towards the sun with a certain
general shape and height capacity, but if it finds itself up against a rock
or another tree, it may mold itself around that other object. Although many
users of fabbers today are concerned with the precise representation of
their designs, future users will often be satisfied to just give a general
indication of what they want and let the computer and fabber work out the
details.
Best regards,
Marshall Burns
President, Ennex Corporation
Marshall@Ennex.com
Los Angeles, USA, (310) 397-1314
http://www.Ennex.com
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 23:02:47 EEST