Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Additive manufacturing[edit]

Here is a book that has become the seminal go-to text for the overall process of additive manufacturing Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing. Perhaps we should start a Wikitionary article on additive manufacturing as well, as the technology and term in the Engineering discipline has been around for three or more years now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Additive manufacturing is not the correct term here. A physible object can be manufactured as a physical object using many any number of manufacturing processes. The key word is "3D printer" not "additive manufacturing." See

RFV discussion: November 2013–June 2014[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

“a data object that is able, and feasible, to become a physical object using an additive manufacturing process such as with a 3D printer” — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

N2e (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WT:CFI. Blogs and online articles are not valid, and the citations must span a year. — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I've got it (barely) cited.
Also, there are a surprising number of uses in edited works of the spelling where I would expect feasible, especially by authors who may be non-native speakers. Is there a reason for this apart from homophony? DCDuring TALK 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
*near homophony --WikiTiki89 16:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The third cite is a mention (and so is the first, but the term is used in the title). — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
So it's a common misspelling of the noun 'feasible' is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting it. I see the corresponding error for feasibility, too, but it is not common relative to anything, whereas physible as a misspelling is more common than the challenged sense. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The first Google books hit for me (google books:"physible") has "It is a realm where you behold the invisible and turn it into physible." I can't tell if it's a misspelling of visible or just a pun. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Physible and visible are phonologically identical apart from the first consonant sound, but the spelling is different enough I strongly suspect this to be wordplay not a spelling mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I concur completely. Rather explicitly a variation (perhaps what you call "wordplay") that is intentional, and receiving acceptance and use within the 3D printing and additive manufacturing community. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2015–February 2016[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Rfv-sense "Able to be made physical". I looked only very cursorily at GBS but saw nothing.​—msh210 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a number of cites:
  • 2001, Shanker Kumar Shrestha, A step towards victim justice system: Nepalese perspective, →ISBN, page 118:
    Rehabilitation or restitution and social sheltering are the subjects of long-run scheme, which may be fulfilled after the probable or physible study and after settlement of the certain objectives.
  • 2005, The Indian Journal of Political Science - Volume 66, page 447:
    Hence, any world order devoid of transformation in man is not physible.
  • 2004, Proceedings, Technology Development Workshop, page 212:
    Also this technology was economically viable, biologically physible and socially acceptable.
  • 1980, Indian Banking Today & Tomorrow - Volumes 5-6, page 49:
    An expert evaluating the project of dairy finance by commercial banks has concluded that the financing to small producers for the dairying could be viable and physible business proposal.
They are all Indian, so I suspect that it may be dialectical. The only non-Indian citation I could find was this:
  • 2014, Joanne McNeil, Best of Rhizome 2012, →ISBN:
    Retro physible hackers will take up woodworking, just to "make something real".
which doesn't seem to support the supplied meaning, since that hackers already have physical form. Kiwima (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
These would need to be clearly differentiated from the first sense of a misspelling of feasible - try reading it as either "physible" or "feasible" per cite. In the contexts of many of those cites, I would expect "feasible", since there doesn't seem to be anything particularly physical that is being talked about therein. That retro physible hacker cite makes me think of the noun sense related to 3D printing. Nibiko (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nibiko. The 1980, 2001, and 2004 cites in particular, because of the meanings of the adjectives with which physible are coordinated, seem to be about as good cites of the misspelling as we are likely to get. The 2005 citation is only slightly more ambiguous. What a delightful misspelling! DCDuring TALK 03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You could call it a rare misspelling. However it should be included even as a rare misspelling because it's not obvious what it's a misspelling of. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The question is, is it a misspelling, or is it an instance of the meaning about capable of being made physical. I tend to lean toward the latter, while it seems that you lean toward the former. Kiwima (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
We need unambiguous cites to attest whatever definitions we keep. I certainly don't see the cites before 2014 supporting either the digital sense or the challenged sense. I would have thought that we could agree on them unambiguously supporting a misspelling. Apparently not.
The only definition we have either from outside sources or with unambiguous citations is the neologistic one for a digital object that can be rendered into 3(4?)-dimensional physical form. All of the cites above, except the one from 2014, precede the rise of the digital->3-d sense, so they cannot be generalizations of that sense. It seems wildly implausible that physible could be used in general usage without someone suggesting a definition nearby, as it is a formation that violates normal morphology. The explanation that would best satisfy Occam would be that it is a misspelling that for some reason happens more readily in India than elsewhere. If physible had appeared in some Indian works on philosophy or spiritualism, I could have accepted the definition under challenge, but that is not the case. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like it's feasible with the spelling altered by folk etymology. It probably arose in India because first-language English-speakers would probably think of physible as rhyming with visible, or perhaps sizable, and there are a lot of second-language speakers in India. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, especially with DCDuring's comments. The citations seem to be meaning (and misspelling) feasible. By my ken, the "able to be made physical" since fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)