Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

[Robert Clark]

An article from 2015:

3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 4:48
p.m. EST November 12, 2015
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/

Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, but
none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.

This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with its
high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.

But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the home,
an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, 3D-printed
car.
And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
3D-printed automobile.

This would revolutionize the industry, obviously.

The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission.

This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor:

How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA

Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be accomplished
by 3D-printing.


Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bitrex]

On 07/03/2017 08:31 AM, Robert Clark wrote:

> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the
> home, an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size,
> 3D-printed car.
> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
> 3D-printed automobile.

For a hobbyist trying to design/build their own electric vehicle
acquiring or fabricating the chassis is literally the least difficult
part of the job. Why would you want to make it _more_ difficult

> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor:
>
> How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA

Why bother, it's not like high performance electric motors are rare.

> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be
> accomplished by 3D-printing.

Insisting that every part of a homebrew EV also be 3D printed at home
from one's personal 3D printer is a tits-on-a-bull project for turbodorks.

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 8:31:23 AM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
> An article from 2015:
>
> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 4:48
> p.m. EST November 12, 2015
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>
> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, but
> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.
>
> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with its
> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.

Difficult, but not impossible. NASA has done 3-d printing of rocket
combustion chambers.

>
> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the home,
> an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, 3D-printed
> car.

Electric motor is MUCH more difficult. You must deal with close
tolerance of TWO very different materials. All of the wires
consist of a metallic core and a thin insulator sheath.

> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
> 3D-printed automobile.
>
> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously.
>
> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission.
>
> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor:

[]

> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be
> accomplished by 3D-printing.

not the wiring! (at lease not by the 3-d printers available today)

Sorry, but your dream will have to wait.

ed

[Sегg io]

On 7/3/2017 8:31 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 8:31:23 AM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
>> An article from 2015:
>>
>> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 4:48
>> p.m. EST November 12, 2015
>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>>
>> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, but
>> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.
>>
>> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with its
>> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.
>
> Difficult, but not impossible. NASA has done 3-d printing of rocket
> combustion chambers.

some are "printing" with titanium.

>>
>> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
>> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the home,
>> an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, 3D-printed
>> car.
>
> Electric motor is MUCH more difficult. You must deal with close
> tolerance of TWO very different materials. All of the wires
> consist of a metallic core and a thin insulator sheath.

Tesla has automated electric motor fabrication, much cheaper than
"printing" a motor. Excellent video on it somewhere.

>
>
>> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
>> 3D-printed automobile.
>>
>> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously.

no, the cost is too high, the process too slow.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Arm waving nonsense.

You need multiple 3D printers if you need to print with multiple materials.

Consumer 3D printers print small parts from cheap plastic and cost hundreds
of dollars.

Industrial 3D printers that print large parts with metals cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars and the printing material costs more than raw metal
stock.

3D printing is advantageous for parts with complex shapes that are difficult
or impossible to make with other techniques but is disadvantageous for
most parts that ARE manufacturable with conventional techniques as they
can be made faster and cheaper.

3D printing makes PARTS that still need to be assembled.

3D printing an electric motor is just silly.



--
Jim Pennino

[Jeff Findley]

In article <b2aq2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...

> Arm waving nonsense.
>
> You need multiple 3D printers if you need to print with multiple materials.
>
> Consumer 3D printers print small parts from cheap plastic and cost hundreds
> of dollars.
>
> Industrial 3D printers that print large parts with metals cost hundreds of
> thousands of dollars and the printing material costs more than raw metal
> stock.
>
> 3D printing is advantageous for parts with complex shapes that are difficult
> or impossible to make with other techniques but is disadvantageous for
> most parts that ARE manufacturable with conventional techniques as they
> can be made faster and cheaper.
>
> 3D printing makes PARTS that still need to be assembled.
>
> 3D printing an electric motor is just silly.
>

I'm generally in agreement with all of the above. That motor which was
3D printed is a toy. That toy motor is far simpler than a stepper
motor, so any thought of 3D printers printing other 3D printers is just
a fantasy at this point.

Today's "state of the art" of 3D printing does not make it a panacea for
manufacturing. Furthermore, 3D printing with locally produced (non-
earth) materials is decades away.

But progress is being made in the field. GE is working on producing a
3D printer capable of printing 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter parts. This
is coming from its aircraft engine division. 3D printing is a very hot
topic these days.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <b2aq2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>> Arm waving nonsense.
>>
>> You need multiple 3D printers if you need to print with multiple materials.
>>
>> Consumer 3D printers print small parts from cheap plastic and cost hundreds
>> of dollars.
>>
>> Industrial 3D printers that print large parts with metals cost hundreds of
>> thousands of dollars and the printing material costs more than raw metal
>> stock.
>>
>> 3D printing is advantageous for parts with complex shapes that are difficult
>> or impossible to make with other techniques but is disadvantageous for
>> most parts that ARE manufacturable with conventional techniques as they
>> can be made faster and cheaper.
>>
>> 3D printing makes PARTS that still need to be assembled.
>>
>> 3D printing an electric motor is just silly.
>>
>
> I'm generally in agreement with all of the above. That motor which was
> 3D printed is a toy. That toy motor is far simpler than a stepper
> motor, so any thought of 3D printers printing other 3D printers is just
> a fantasy at this point.
>
> Today's "state of the art" of 3D printing does not make it a panacea for
> manufacturing. Furthermore, 3D printing with locally produced (non-
> earth) materials is decades away.

3D printing requires special raw stock manufactured just for 3D printing
no matter what the print material is.

3D printing is slow and expensive compared to any other method of making
parts so only become economical if the part in question is so complex that
3D printing it is cheaper than any other method.

The cost and speed of 3D printing will obviously never match that of
stamping out sheet metal, casting, or NC machining.

> But progress is being made in the field. GE is working on producing a
> 3D printer capable of printing 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter parts. This
> is coming from its aircraft engine division. 3D printing is a very hot
> topic these days.

Yes, for very complex parts that would otherwise have to be made in
pieces then somehow assempled.

>
> Jeff

--
Jim Pennino

[Jeff Findley]

In article <mueq2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...

> 3D printing requires special raw stock manufactured just for 3D printing
> no matter what the print material is.
>
> 3D printing is slow and expensive compared to any other method of making
> parts so only become economical if the part in question is so complex that
> 3D printing it is cheaper than any other method.

Actually if the 3D printed part replaces many other parts (e.g.
SuperDraco engines) then it's faster to print than it is to manufacture
and assemble all those other parts. But that does fall under your "so
complex" exception because in that case it is cheaper to print than try
to use other manufacturing techniques.

In aerospace, think things like liquid fueled rocket engine combustion
chambers with lots of tiny internal cooling passages. Those are a
p.i.t.a. to make using conventional manufacturing techniques, but a
breeze to 3D print.

> The cost and speed of 3D printing will obviously never match that of
> stamping out sheet metal, casting, or NC machining.

For "trivial" parts, that is true. I installed a new garage door at
home a few weeks ago. Lots of stamped sheet metal parts there, even the
hinges.

> > But progress is being made in the field. GE is working on producing a
> > 3D printer capable of printing 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter parts. This
> > is coming from its aircraft engine division. 3D printing is a very hot
> > topic these days.
>
> Yes, for very complex parts that would otherwise have to be made in
> pieces then somehow assempled.

Exactly.

Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
from management types.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <mueq2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>> 3D printing requires special raw stock manufactured just for 3D printing
>> no matter what the print material is.
>>
>> 3D printing is slow and expensive compared to any other method of making
>> parts so only become economical if the part in question is so complex that
>> 3D printing it is cheaper than any other method.
>
> Actually if the 3D printed part replaces many other parts (e.g.
> SuperDraco engines) then it's faster to print than it is to manufacture
> and assemble all those other parts. But that does fall under your "so
> complex" exception because in that case it is cheaper to print than try
> to use other manufacturing techniques.
>
> In aerospace, think things like liquid fueled rocket engine combustion
> chambers with lots of tiny internal cooling passages. Those are a
> p.i.t.a. to make using conventional manufacturing techniques, but a
> breeze to 3D print.

And the total market for such things is a tiny fraction of all things
manufactured, or even of all 4 slice toasters manufactured.

>> The cost and speed of 3D printing will obviously never match that of
>> stamping out sheet metal, casting, or NC machining.
>
> For "trivial" parts, that is true. I installed a new garage door at
> home a few weeks ago. Lots of stamped sheet metal parts there, even the
> hinges.

My estimate is that for all things manufactured parts that can be made
cheaper and faster by conventional means amount to about 99.99%.

>> > But progress is being made in the field. GE is working on producing a
>> > 3D printer capable of printing 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter parts. This
>> > is coming from its aircraft engine division. 3D printing is a very hot
>> > topic these days.
>>
>> Yes, for very complex parts that would otherwise have to be made in
>> pieces then somehow assempled.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
> parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
> from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
> to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
> from management types.

And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
without the expense of 3D printing.

Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?

3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.

Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.


> Jeff

--
Jim Pennino

[Fred J. McCall]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
>My estimate is that for all things manufactured parts that can be made
>cheaper and faster by conventional means amount to about 99.99%.
>

And the world will only need 3 computers. Usual Chimp wisdom.

>
>And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
>that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
>without the expense of 3D printing.
>

That's why we use carbon fiber on cars; because weight doesn't matter.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>
>>My estimate is that for all things manufactured parts that can be made
>>cheaper and faster by conventional means amount to about 99.99%.
>>
>
> And the world will only need 3 computers. Usual Chimp wisdom.

Kiss my ass Red Herring McTroll.

>>And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
>>that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
>>without the expense of 3D printing.
>>
>
> That's why we use carbon fiber on cars; because weight doesn't matter.

"Where's the Affordable Carbon Fiber Automobile?"

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/539971/wheres-the-affordable-carbon-fiber-automobile/

"While the cost of carbon fiber materials and production has declined
in recent decades, it remains prohibitive for anything but limited
applications in niche vehicles."



--
Jim Pennino

[Robert Baer]

Robert Clark wrote:
> An article from 2015:
>
> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
> 4:48 p.m. EST November 12, 2015
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>
>
> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars,
> but none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.
>
> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with
> its high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.
>
> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the
> home, an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size,
> 3D-printed car.
> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
> 3D-printed automobile.
>
> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously.
>
> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission.

* Transmission not needed; look at the Tesla.

>
> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor:
>
> How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA
>
> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be
> accomplished by 3D-printing.

* GACK! A DC motor with commutator! How gross.
The working part of the engine should be exactly like the armature
in the Tesla car: design is same as armature in an AC shaded pole fan motor.
That design would not be too difficult for a 3Dprinter.

>
>
> Bob Clark
>

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-07-03 16:14, Jeff Findley wrote:

> Actually if the 3D printed part replaces many other parts (e.g.
> SuperDraco engines) then it's faster to print than it is to manufacture
> and assemble all those other parts.

Am thinking 3D printing would have uses making moulds/mandrels for
complex composite parts (which would then be far stronger than the
plastic 3D printed moulds).

Once done, you can melt the plastic to get it out of places where it
normally couldn't get out.

[Fred J. McCall]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>My estimate is that for all things manufactured parts that can be made
>>>cheaper and faster by conventional means amount to about 99.99%.
>>>
>>
>> And the world will only need 3 computers. Usual Chimp wisdom.
>
>Kiss my ass Red Herring McTroll.
>

You're all ass, Chimp.

>>>And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
>>>that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
>>>without the expense of 3D printing.
>>>
>>
>> That's why we use carbon fiber on cars; because weight doesn't matter.
>
>"Where's the Affordable Carbon Fiber Automobile?"
>

Oh, it's not just "things that fly" anymore. Now it's 'affordable'.
My car has carbon fibre parts. I thought it was pretty affordable.

>
>https://www.technologyreview.com/s/539971/wheres-the-affordable-carbon-fiber-automobile/
>
>"While the cost of carbon fiber materials and production has declined
>in recent decades, it remains prohibitive for anything but limited
>applications in niche vehicles."
>

That would, according to the Chimp's prior statements, no doubt be the
flying cars, since flying vehicles are the only ones where weight
matters that much (according to him).

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2017-07-03 16:14, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> Actually if the 3D printed part replaces many other parts (e.g.
>> SuperDraco engines) then it's faster to print than it is to manufacture
>> and assemble all those other parts.
>>
>
>Am thinking 3D printing would have uses making moulds/mandrels for
>complex composite parts (which would then be far stronger than the
>plastic 3D printed moulds).
>

Uh, 3D printing hasn't been limited to plastics for a very long time.
SpaceX is directly printing rocket engine combustion chambers. They're
not made of plastic.

>
>Once done, you can melt the plastic to get it out of places where it
>normally couldn't get out.
>

Why even involve 3D printing if you're then going to throw it away by
reverting to casting parts?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>My estimate is that for all things manufactured parts that can be made
>>>>cheaper and faster by conventional means amount to about 99.99%.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the world will only need 3 computers. Usual Chimp wisdom.
>>
>>Kiss my ass Red Herring McTroll.
>>
>
> You're all ass, Chimp.

You're all nasty troll.

*PLONK*


--
Jim Pennino

[David Mitchell]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
> without the expense of 3D printing.
>
> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?
>
> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.

"Nobody needs more than 640K"

I don't really think it's sensible to say "never" wrt technology - you're
judging a very immature technology

The biggest problem wrt printing vehicles will, I suspect, be the legislation
governing safety.

[Fred J. McCall]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My estimate is that for all things manufactured parts that can be made
>>>>>cheaper and faster by conventional means amount to about 99.99%.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the world will only need 3 computers. Usual Chimp wisdom.
>>>
>>>Kiss my ass Red Herring McTroll.
>>>
>>
>> You're all ass, Chimp.
>>
>
>You're all nasty troll.
>
>*PLONK*
>

Let me put things in terms you can understand, Chimp.
OoooOOOOooooOOOOoooOO.

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <slnq2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...

> > Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
> > parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
> > from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
> > to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
> > from management types.
>
> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
> without the expense of 3D printing.

True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's
not the entire aircraft.

If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be
pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed
3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts.

Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.

> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?

Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
understand the domain.

> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.
>
> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.

This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
content.

I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
"bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
so I ought to know.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-07-04 09:11, Jeff Findley wrote:

> composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
> hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
> flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
> content.

Wouldn't the DC9s/MD80s still in use in the USA be devoid of composites?

And out of curiosity, since new 737s have maintained the "type rating"
of the 1960s 737s, how much of the plane can they convert to composites?

(there are issues with lightning protection for instance which require
different treatment, so not sure if that fits inside the same type rating).

And if they are using 3D printing to create metal parts, how does that
work exactly? Some pen pours molten titanium/whatever to create each
layer? Or is it more laser based to cut a solid block into the perfect
shape?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Nope, economics.

It takes a fraction of a second to stamp out a sheet metal automobile body
part out of standard sheet metal stock.

I fail to understand why geeks think 3D printing is the ultimate answer
to manufacturing when it is in fact slow and expensive.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <slnq2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>> > Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
>> > parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
>> > from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
>> > to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
>> > from management types.
>>
>> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
>> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
>> without the expense of 3D printing.
>
> True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's
> not the entire aircraft.
>
> If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be
> pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed
> 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts.
>
> Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
> area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
> a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
> be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.

Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
that big a part of an aircrafts weight.

>> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?
>
> Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
> the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
> understand the domain.
>
>> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.
>>
>> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.
>
> This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
> composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
> hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
> flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
> content.

An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE
number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well
over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of
composite materials in their construction.

Note the word "most".

> I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
> "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
> surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
> further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
> so I ought to know.

Whoopee. It is still niche.

Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?


> Jeff

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Metal powder deposition and laser or electron beam sintering.

BTW, metal powders tend to be explosive.

--
Jim Pennino

[Robert Clark]

You are correct that metal 3D-printed parts by amateurs were only designed
by them, but had to be actually printed by one of the large 3D-printing
companies.

Still, that leaves open the possibility that a scale-model car could be
designed by amateurs to be fully 3D-printed by one of the large companies.

The largest of the professional, metal 3D-printers common now can 3D-print
parts about a foot across and cost about $250,000. So you can imagine a
3D-printer that can 3D-print parts, say, 10 feet across, would be 10^3 =
1,000 times larger in volume and mass, and perhaps a thousand times more
expensive, to $250 million.

An expensive proposition. But if it can be shown a scale-model car can be
fully 3D-printed then it might be worthwhile for a large industrial company
to invest in this when it would mean any car of any model could be
3D-printed on demand.

Bob Clark

[Greg Goss]

Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

>Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
>parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
>from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
>to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
>from management types.

Sometimes you light-weight a part too far. Back in 1985, my mechanic
called me in to look at a repair. The new brake disk was much heavier
and much less "organic". But the original one warped because it
didn't have enough mass to absorb the heat till it could be radiated
away, and the manufacturer provided a much simpler but heavier
replacement part.

The new part was so much different looking than the original one that
he wanted my permission to proceed.

(As a 400 pound guy who likes to drive econobox microcars, I always
seem to have alignment and brake problems only on the front left.
Hmmm?)
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
>> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
>> without the expense of 3D printing.
>>
>> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?
>>
>> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.
>
>"Nobody needs more than 640K"
>
>I don't really think it's sensible to say "never" wrt technology - you're
>judging a very immature technology

The Altair was obsolete in two years. The Apple ][ was obsolete in
five, though genius level reworkings kept it going for what, 12? The
context for that quote was the decision to build a computer with ten
times the memory capacity of the normal business computer out there at
the time, with the expectation that they would totally revamp the
design in a few years. Remember that was the time when Microsoft bet
big on Unix as the next big thing. Nobody expected to be finding ISA
compatible computers running a compatible OS 35 years later.

>
>The biggest problem wrt printing vehicles will, I suspect, be the legislation
>governing safety.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-07-04 14:02, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Nope, economics.
>
> It takes a fraction of a second to stamp out a sheet metal automobile body
> part out of standard sheet metal stock.

But for prototyping, 3D printing is amazing tech even if when mass
production starts, it uses old fashioned manufacturing for large volumes.

And in low production scenarios (such as rockets), 3D printing could
become very interesting. However, it does compete against CAD/CAM
machinery that can do some types of parts more efficiently than 3D print.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-07-04 14:19, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Metal powder deposition and laser or electron beam sintering.
>
> BTW, metal powders tend to be explosive.

Thanks. Does this really produce parts that are on par with those
produced with conventional means when it comes to
force/strength/endurance (especially when it comes to re-usable engines) ?

It appears so as SpaceX uses it, but just wondering if the physics of
melting layers of powder yields the same strength a a solid block that
is machine tooled.

Also, if it is powder, how do they make a "roof" over empty spaces (such
a the top of a horizontal cylendrical pipe inside the unit).

[John Larkin]

There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-07-04 14:19, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Metal powder deposition and laser or electron beam sintering.
>>
>> BTW, metal powders tend to be explosive.
>
> Thanks. Does this really produce parts that are on par with those
> produced with conventional means when it comes to
> force/strength/endurance (especially when it comes to re-usable engines) ?

It depends on what you mean by "on par".

> It appears so as SpaceX uses it, but just wondering if the physics of
> melting layers of powder yields the same strength a a solid block that
> is machine tooled.

It doesn't matter if it is the same strength as long as it is strong
enough for the purpose.

> Also, if it is powder, how do they make a "roof" over empty spaces (such
> a the top of a horizontal cylendrical pipe inside the unit).

Make the part upside down so the "roof" is a "floor" during printing.

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

No, as a niche technique it does not compete with much of anything.

--
Jim Pennino

[Fred J. McCall]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
>I fail to understand why geeks think 3D printing is the ultimate answer
>to manufacturing when it is in fact slow and expensive.
>

You fail to understand so much, this is just one tiny thing among
many.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2017-07-04 14:19, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Metal powder deposition and laser or electron beam sintering.
>>
>> BTW, metal powders tend to be explosive.
>>
>
>Thanks. Does this really produce parts that are on par with those
>produced with conventional means when it comes to
>force/strength/endurance (especially when it comes to re-usable engines) ?
>
>It appears so as SpaceX uses it, but just wondering if the physics of
>melting layers of powder yields the same strength a a solid block that
>is machine tooled.
>

"Compared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has
superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower
variability in materials properties. The MOV body was printed in less
than two days, compared with a typical castings cycle measured in
months."

http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/07/31/spacex-launches-3d-printed-part-space-creates-printed-engine-chamber-crewed

So with regard to Chimp's claim of 'slower' and your concern about
'weaker', SpaceX says bullshit.

>
>Also, if it is powder, how do they make a "roof" over empty spaces (such
>a the top of a horizontal cylendrical pipe inside the unit).
>

Silly question. How do you make an igloo? Same thing but with much
tinier blocks.

[David Mitchell]

It is slow and expensive, *at the moment*, but it won't always be; and one of
the ways it will start to be rapid and cheap is by fabricating things which make
other things.

So, for example, it will make moulds, and the machinery to use them, which will
combine the advantages of bespoke design with the speed and low-cost of
traditional manufacturing.

Similarly, it will fabricate machines which wind, for example, copper wire onto
cast armatures.

[David Mitchell]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?

Yes. I do.

If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense
to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to
honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough,
and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other
projects.

Ditto everything you make.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <vd2t2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...

> > Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
> > area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
> > a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
> > be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.
>
> Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
> that big a part of an aircrafts weight.

From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source):

The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can
even reach 7%.

That's significant in aerospace.

> >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?
> >
> > Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
> > the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
> > understand the domain.
> >
> >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.
> >>
> >> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.
> >
> > This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
> > composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
> > hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
> > flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
> > content.
>
> An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE
> number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well
> over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of
> composite materials in their construction.
>
> Note the word "most".

How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing
processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the
same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest?

> > I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
> > "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
> > surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
> > further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
> > so I ought to know.
>
> Whoopee. It is still niche.

You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the
aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester.

> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?

This isn't sci.toaster.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <es2vp4...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org says...

Yes, engineers and "bean counters" sometimes cut too far.

[Mahipal]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 8:20:59 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <es2vp4...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org says...
> >
> > Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
> > >parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
> > >from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
> > >to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
> > >from management types.
> >
> > Sometimes you light-weight a part too far. Back in 1985, my mechanic
> > called me in to look at a repair. The new brake disk was much heavier
> > and much less "organic". But the original one warped because it
> > didn't have enough mass to absorb the heat till it could be radiated
> > away, and the manufacturer provided a much simpler but heavier
> > replacement part.
> >
> > The new part was so much different looking than the original one that
> > he wanted my permission to proceed.
> >
> > (As a 400 pound guy who likes to drive econobox microcars, I always
> > seem to have alignment and brake problems only on the front left.
> > Hmmm?)

Front left only? Perhaps, just a suggestion, go live/drive six months
a year in Britan? Balances everything out. Year after year... He he...

> Yes, engineers and "bean counters" sometimes cut too far.

Recently, the(y)TheThem created a new field: Financial Engineering.

> Jeff
> --
> All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
> These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
> employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Poet Pla(y)ing Tennis! Grasshopper Mode...”
Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-07-05 08:19, Jeff Findley wrote:

> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can
> even reach 7%.
>
> That's significant in aerospace.

And it was a HUGE challenge to make the A380 a reality, one which
delayed the project a number of years. To not punch holes onto runways,
they had to spread the A380s' weight over more wheels, which means more
landing gear assemblies. it has 5 instead of the usual 3.

And that meant reducing the weight of each landing gear. Otherwise the
plane wouldn't be commercially viable.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Because it is fast and cheap.

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
it was produced.

It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
add no functionality and just increase the price.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite
materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still
trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other
than camper shells and ski boats.

So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.

>> > I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
>> > "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
>> > surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
>> > further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
>> > so I ought to know.
>>
>> Whoopee. It is still niche.
>
> You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the
> aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester.

I didn't choose the groups and it is being posted to other groups as
well.

In the overall scheme of things, aerospace is a niche industry.

>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?
>
> This isn't sci.toaster.

Nor is is sci.niche.

>
> Jeff

--
Jim Pennino

[Thomas Koenig]

Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> schrieb:

> If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be
> pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed
> 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts.

One nice thing about 3D printing is that you can create voids
in places you cannot with conventional technologies.

This can help a _lot_ when putting in cooling channels (wildly
important for turbine manufacturers who always fight for that extra
10 K of maximum temperature to get that extra bit of efficiency), or
when you can put in a void where you don't actually need material,
and all it would do would be to add mass and/or create thermal
stress on heating up or cooling down.

[Edward Prochak]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:16:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
[]

>
> Nope, economics.
>
> It takes a fraction of a second to stamp out a sheet metal automobile body
> part out of standard sheet metal stock.
>
> I fail to understand why geeks think 3D printing is the ultimate answer
> to manufacturing when it is in fact slow and expensive.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Jim,
You are repeating the classic Bill Gates 640K mistake and the three computers in the world market comment.

New technology is slow. Consider early computers with
clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive
to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology
evolved.

Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades.
But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before
we bomb ourselves out of this world).

ed

[Fred J. McCall]

Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
lives...

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in
the real world.

>
>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>

Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for
having your head up and locked.

>>> > I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
>>> > "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
>>> > surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
>>> > further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
>>> > so I ought to know.
>>>
>>> Whoopee. It is still niche.
>>
>> You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the
>> aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester.
>
>I didn't choose the groups and it is being posted to other groups as
>well.
>

You didn't? Do you not know how your newsreader works, or what?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time
and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will
ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially
prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive.

>
> ed

--
Jim Pennino

[Sегg io]

On 7/5/2017 1:07 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:16:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> []
>>>
>>> Nope, economics.

>>

>> Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades.
>> But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before
>> we bomb ourselves out of this world).
>
> The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time
> and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will
> ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially
> prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive.
>

+ the "printed" metal is full of heat stress and voids, and gas
contamnation.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Nope, but the things that keep that from happening are also part of the
reason why such is slow and expensive and will always be so.


--
Jim Pennino

[Edward Prochak]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[]

> >
> > New technology is slow. Consider early computers with
> > clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive
> > to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology
> > evolved.
> >
> > Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades.
> > But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before
> > we bomb ourselves out of this world).
>
> The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time
> and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will
> ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially
> prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive.
>

Same argument could have been made with early computers.
For first generation:
Because relays are mechanical computers will always be slow
and unreliable.

For second generation:
Because vacuum tubes need a hot filament to operate,
computers will always be hot and unreliable.

Don't count out the possibility for new materials or
methods to change the game dramatically.

Now I did notice, Jim, you changed from Never to 50 years.
You might be right on that time frame. IOW, I agree that
some of these predictions are very optimistic.
ed

[Jeff Findley]

In article <u6iv2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...

>
> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
> it was produced.
>
> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
> add no functionality and just increase the price.

Lightweight metal silverware is a bit of a niche area, but there is an
existing market. Titanium spork is a popular item for backpackers.
It's insane how light those things are. Backpackers will spend big
bucks to shave an ounce off of a piece of equipment.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> []
>> >
>> > New technology is slow. Consider early computers with
>> > clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive
>> > to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology
>> > evolved.
>> >
>> > Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades.
>> > But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before
>> > we bomb ourselves out of this world).
>>
>> The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time
>> and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will
>> ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially
>> prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive.
>>
>
> Same argument could have been made with early computers.
> For first generation:
> Because relays are mechanical computers will always be slow
> and unreliable.
>
> For second generation:
> Because vacuum tubes need a hot filament to operate,
> computers will always be hot and unreliable.
>
> Don't count out the possibility for new materials or
> methods to change the game dramatically.

Bloviating nonsense.

The accuracy of the printed object depends on the thickness of the applied
layer which means if you want a fraction of a millimeter accuracy in your
part, you need fraction of a millimeter layers.

Do you think a new form of aluminum or titanium will be invented?

> Now I did notice, Jim, you changed from Never to 50 years.
> You might be right on that time frame. IOW, I agree that
> some of these predictions are very optimistic.

What the hell are you talking about?

> ed

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <u6iv2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>>
>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
>> it was produced.
>>
>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
>> add no functionality and just increase the price.
>
> Lightweight metal silverware is a bit of a niche area, but there is an
> existing market. Titanium spork is a popular item for backpackers.
> It's insane how light those things are. Backpackers will spend big
> bucks to shave an ounce off of a piece of equipment.
>
> Jeff

What do you think the market may be for 3D printed frizzens?

--
Jim Pennino

[k...@notreal.com]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>
>>
>>Because it is fast and cheap.
>>
>
>Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>lives...

Are you saying that castings are not good?

[k...@notreal.com]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

>> In article <slnq2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...

>>> > Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
>>> > parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
>>> > from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
>>> > to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
>>> > from management types.
>>>

>>> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
>>> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
>>> without the expense of 3D printing.
>>

>> True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's
>> not the entire aircraft.

>>
>> If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be
>> pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed
>> 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts.
>>

>> Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
>> area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
>> a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
>> be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.
>
>Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
>that big a part of an aircrafts weight.
>

>>> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?
>>
>> Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
>> the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
>> understand the domain.
>>
>>> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.
>>>
>>> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.
>>
>> This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
>> composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
>> hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
>> flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
>> content.
>
>An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE
>number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well
>over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of
>composite materials in their construction.
>
>Note the word "most".
>

>> I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
>> "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
>> surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
>> further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
>> so I ought to know.
>
>Whoopee. It is still niche.
>

>Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?

Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters
based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs
all do the same thing.

[k...@notreal.com]

Precisely what do you disagree with in the sentence?

"composite materials have been around for over a half century and
the usage is still trivial compared to traditional materials"

>>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>>
>
>Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for
>having your head up and locked.

Seems like someone insulted your binkie.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

And all look about the same.


--
Jim Pennino

[Fred J. McCall]

I'm saying what I said.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall

<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because it is fast and cheap.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>>>lives...
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying that castings are not good?
>>
>
>I'm saying what I said.

I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess
there wasn't any to make.

[k...@notreal.com]

Not so much:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/

[Fred J. McCall]

I disagree that you have included his entire thought. Given his
sphere of knowledge of the use of composites, which he calls out as
"camper shells and ski boats", he's obviously trailer trash.

Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp
probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and
mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since
the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place,
from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials.

>>>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>>>
>>
>>Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for
>>having your head up and locked.
>
>Seems like someone insulted your binkie.
>

Every time we see the Chimp around here he is arguing a stupid
position adamantly. Perhaps you and he should get a room?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

For any given era they look pretty much the same to me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868


--
Jim Pennino

[Fred J. McCall]

k...@notreal.com wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it is fast and cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>>>>lives...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you saying that castings are not good?
>>>
>>
>>I'm saying what I said.
>
>I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess
>there wasn't any to make.
>

I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real
world, but I can't fix you.

[Robert Clark]

In article <vd2t2e-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>says...

>> > Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
>> > area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
>> > a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
>> > be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.
>>
>> Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
>> that big a part of an aircrafts weight.
>

>From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source):
>
> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can
> even reach 7%.
>
>That's significant in aerospace.
>
>

>Jeff

--

Thanks for that info. I didn't realize it was that high. Since the gross
fueled mass of a jet is about twice the empty mass, this means the landing
gear weight can be up to 14% of the structural weight of a plane.


Bob Clark

------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------

[David Mitchell]

What price?

It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the
cost of slightly more complex software.

They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.

So, by that metric, they're cheaper.

[David Mitchell]

Not really, 3D printing is capable of exponential growth once it reaches a
certain capability, composites aren't, and the parts we won't be fabricating for
a while, processors and storage, are subject to Moore's law.

[David Mitchell]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>>> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it is fast and cheap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>>>>> lives...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that castings are not good?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm saying what I said.
>>
>> I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess
>> there wasn't any to make.
>>
>
> I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real
> world, but I can't fix you.

You're a bit of a bellend aren't you.

*PLONK*

[Robert Clark]

Robert Clark wrote:
>> An article from 2015:
>>
>> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
>> 4:48 p.m. EST November 12, 2015
>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>>
>>
>> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars,
>> but none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.
>>
>> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with
>> its high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.
>>
>> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
>> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the
>> home, an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size,
>> 3D-printed car.
>> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
>> 3D-printed automobile.
>>
>> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously.
>>
>> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission.
>* Transmission not needed; look at the Tesla.
>
>>
>> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor:
>>
>> How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA
>>
>> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be
>> accomplished by 3D-printing.
>
>* GACK! A DC motor with commutator! How gross.
> The working part of the engine should be exactly like the armature
>in the Tesla car: design is same as armature in an AC shaded pole fan
>motor.
> That design would not be too difficult for a 3Dprinter.
>
>---


Do you have any references for how the Tesla car electric motor looks/works?

Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

[Robert Clark]

An article from 2015:
>
>3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 4:48
>p.m. EST November 12, 2015
>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>
>Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, but
>none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.
>
>This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with its
>high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.
>
>But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
>considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the home,
>an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, 3D-printed
>car.
>And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
>3D-printed automobile.
>
>This would revolutionize the industry, obviously.
>
>The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission.
>

>This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor:
>
>How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA
>
>Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be
>accomplished by 3D-printing.
>
>

> Bob Clark
>


Here's a description of the commercial, metal 3D-printers now in use:

Learn how 3d printing metal works – Top 3 ways! 02, 10 , 2016.
https://pinshape.com/blog/3d-printing-metal/

The first method described as "metal binder jetting" might be the easiest
one for amateurs to adapt to make a home metal 3D-printer. This method is
also the fastest as described here:

Desktop Metal reveals how its 3D printers rapidly churn out metal objects.
Posted Apr 25, 2017 by Lora Kolodny (@lorakolodny)
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/25/desktop-metal-reveals-how-its-3d-printers-rapidly-churn-out-metal-objects/

The metal "binder jetting method" for 3D metal printing is analogous to how
amateurs make plastic 3D parts so it should be something amateurs could
copy:

Desktop Metal Production System.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUOCiRktuCo

The only complication is that it is a 3 step process: the part is 3D
printed, then put in a solvent bath to dissolve the binder, then finally put
in a high temperature oven to sinter the metal together.

However, the method itself probably is not patented since another company
Metal X is using the same process:

Solid Metal 3D Printing Under $100k - Markforged Metal X | CES 2017.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeZkOuQUeaQ

Many amateurs working independently could come up with improvements to the
process.
For instance, is it possible to combine the metal deposition, dissolving the
binder, and sintering all into a single step?

[Robert Clark]

An article from 2015:
>
>3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 4:48
>p.m. EST November 12, 2015
>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>
>Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, but
>none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.
>
>This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with its
>high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.
>
>But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
>considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the home,
>an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, 3D-printed
>car.
>And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
>3D-printed automobile.
>
>This would revolutionize the industry, obviously.
>
>The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission.
>
>This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor:
>
>How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA
>
>Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be
>accomplished by 3D-printing.
>
>

The Desktop Metal Studio system is not meant for home use. But they do mean
for it to be used by engineers in an office setting to do rapid prototyping.

Their Desktop Metal Production system due out next year is intended for high
volume production. They claim a production rate of 8,200 cm3 per hour, which
they say rivals standard manufacturing techniques.

As described in their videos, this is for production of multiple copies of a
part by a machine with about a cubic foot operating volume:

Desktop Metal Production System.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUOCiRktuCo

However, it would seem the machine could be adapted to make a single part of
this size. That is, instead of making a hundred copies of a part a couple of
inches wide by using multiple jets performing identical deposition passes,
have these jets be separately, and independently directed to make different
portions of one part that is a foot wide.

Say, you wanted to make a steel engine within a machine operating volume 3
feet wide on a side. This would require 33 = 27 of the current machines (or
a single one scaled up this size.) Say, the engine weighed 270 kilos, that's
270,000 grams. Say the weight is equally distributed among the 27 machines,
so 270,000/27 = 10,000 grams for each machine.
The density of steel is about 8 gms/cm3. So that's 10,000/8 = 1,250 cm3.
This would then take 1,250/8,200 =.15 hours, or 9 minutes to make the
complete engine.

It's notable in this video the company's chief engineer says their system
could be scaled up to make an automobile chassis:

VIDEO: How Additive Manufacturing Can Produce Metal Parts en Masse. James
Anderton posted on June 06, 2017 |
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/15052/VIDEO-How-Additive-Manufacturing-Can-Produce-Metal-Parts-en-Masse.aspx

One imagines also, it could be scaled up to make the complete automobile.

[Robert Clark]

On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 01:04:14 UTC+1, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>> The largest of the professional, metal 3D-printers common now can
>> 3D-print
>> parts about a foot across and cost about $250,000. So you can imagine a
>> 3D-printer that can 3D-print parts, say, 10 feet across, would be 10^3 =
>> 1,000 times larger in volume and mass, and perhaps a thousand times more
>> expensive, to $250 million.
>
>Goods don't usually go up in price proportionally to volume.
>And like anything in its infancy 3D printers are coming down in price
>rapidly.
>
>> An expensive proposition. But if it can be shown a scale-model car can be
>> fully 3D-printed then it might be worthwhile for a large industrial
>> company
>> to invest in this when it would mean any car of any model could be
>> 3D-printed on demand.
>>
>> Bob Clark
>
>Jay Leno already gets 3d printed car parts made for old machines with zero
>spares availability. Custom cars might become a lot more popular in future,
>who knows - if so 3d can do that. Whether it will ever compete with stamped
>metal I've very little idea. We hear emotive arguments but nothing very
>solid. At best we can say 3d printing is slow, whereas stamping & casting
>are heavy, wasteful, shape restricted and require way more assembly time.
>
>
>NT
>
>---

With those price numbers I was referring to the price of the machine itself.
Likely, you could also accomplish the same thing by combining several of the
machines to 3D-print objects of a larger size, in which case the price of
the machines would be linear.

At least one other company is using this technique for doing 3D metal
printing:

Solid Metal 3D Printing Under $100k - Markforged Metal X | CES 2017.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeZkOuQUeaQ

So this "binder jetting" method for metal 3D-printing probably is not
patented, though each company may patent their own individual design.

With applications of the process increasing, more companies will come into
the field, increasing the production of the machines and reducing the price.
Also, since this is a process that can be copied by amateurs more creativity
will come into the field possibly resulting in further reductions in cost of
the machines.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <prOdneM5yZijaMDE...@brightview.co.uk>,
david.robo...@gmail.com says...

Some people do like to buy exotic things. Some people even buy
expensive things thinking that if they cost more they *must* be better,
right? Hell, I know a few "foodies" who would likely buy "lightweight"
silverware just to have as a conversation piece at their next dinner
party.

My local Kroger carries a few knives with ceramic blades. One could ask
why of that as well, but they're there on the shelf. Someone must be
buying them since they've been around for several years.

[Robert Clark]

>
>Say, you wanted to make a steel engine within a machine operating volume 3
>feet wide on a side. This would require 33 = 27 of the current machines (or
>a single one scaled up this size.) Say, the engine weighed 270 kilos,
>that's 270,000 grams. Say the weight is equally distributed among the 27
>machines,

The second sentence here should say:

"This would require 3^3 = 27 of the current machines (or a single one scaled
up this size.)"

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?
>>>
>>> Yes. I do.
>>>
>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense
>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to
>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough,
>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other
>>> projects.
>>>
>>> Ditto everything you make.
>>
>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
>> it was produced.
>>
>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
>> add no functionality and just increase the price.
>>
>>
> What price?

The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store.

> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the
> cost of slightly more complex software.

Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction
of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense.

Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost
of the honyecomb nonsense.

> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.

The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded
manufacturing cost.

> So, by that metric, they're cheaper.

If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb
handle costs several cents, which is cheaper?


--
Jim Pennino

[Fred J. McCall]

You're more than a bit of a foreskin, aren't you?

>
>*PLONK*
>

Good idea. It'll save you the frustration of not being able to
explain to me what I mean by what I said.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Edward Prochak]

Do you think the only way to get higher resolution is the
current planar method? Scintering metal powder IS SLOW.

I am allowing for the idea that some other method may
be invented that perhaps images the item in multiple
dimensions at once. Don't ask me how it works because
no one invented it yet.

If you had asked computer experts in the 1940's how to build
a computer that was desktop sized, they would not have a clue
and would likely say "Impossible!" OR that current technology
of vacuum tubes would not be the solution and new materials
and designs would be needed.

>
> > Now I did notice, Jim, you changed from Never to 50 years.
> > You might be right on that time frame. IOW, I agree that
> > some of these predictions are very optimistic.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?

I was being generous from your comment in another post:

> So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.

But if you want to stick to "never", then I can't help you.

ed

[Sегg io]

On 7/5/2017 9:12 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it is fast and cheap.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>>> lives...
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying that castings are not good?
>>
>
> I'm saying what I said.
>
>

you already said that. twice now.

[Sегg io]

On 7/6/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 7:01:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> []
>>>>>
>>>>> New technology is slow. Consider early computers with
>>>>> clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive
>>>>> to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology
>>>>> evolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades.
>>>>> But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before
>>>>> we bomb ourselves out of this world).
>>>>
>>>> The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time
>>>> and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will
>>>> ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially
>>>> prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive.
>>>>

>>

>> The accuracy of the printed object depends on the thickness of the applied
>> layer which means if you want a fraction of a millimeter accuracy in your
>> part, you need fraction of a millimeter layers.
>>
>> Do you think a new form of aluminum or titanium will be invented?
>
> Do you think the only way to get higher resolution is the
> current planar method? Scintering metal powder IS SLOW.

Scintering creates voids, gas inclusions, etc.

>
> I am allowing for the idea that some other method may
> be invented that perhaps images the item in multiple
> dimensions at once. Don't ask me how it works because
> no one invented it yet.
>
> If you had asked computer experts in the 1940's how to build
> a computer that was desktop sized, they would not have a clue
> and would likely say "Impossible!" OR that current technology
> of vacuum tubes would not be the solution and new materials
> and designs would be needed.

comparison to computers is invalid.

we already have many ways to form products, like castings, and many
other ways to form metals,

Key issues are Quality, Cost, and Time.
and we dont know the whole story yet.

[Sегg io]

On 7/6/2017 4:01 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
> Robert Clark wrote:
>>> An article from 2015:
>>>
>>> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
>>> 4:48 p.m. EST November 12, 2015
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>>>
>>>
>>>

>> * GACK! A DC motor with commutator! How gross.
>> The working part of the engine should be exactly like the armature
>> in the Tesla car: design is same as armature in an AC shaded pole fan
>> motor.
>> That design would not be too difficult for a 3Dprinter.
>>
>> ---
>
>
> Do you have any references for how the Tesla car electric motor
> looks/works?
>
> Bob Clark
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bg5mjPANck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMQjcukphpA

[Robert Clark]

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 8:31:23 AM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
>> An article from 2015:
>>
>> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
>> 4:48
>> p.m. EST November 12, 2015
>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>>

>> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars,
>> but
>> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.
>>
>> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with
>> its
>> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.
>

>Difficult, but not impossible. NASA has done 3-d printing of rocket
>combustion chambers.

>>
>> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact
>> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the
>> home,
>> an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size,
>> 3D-printed
>> car.
>

>Electric motor is MUCH more difficult. You must deal with close
>tolerance of TWO very different materials. All of the wires
>consist of a metallic core and a thin insulator sheath.

>
>
>> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully
>> 3D-printed automobile.
>>
>> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously.
>>
>> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission.
>>
>> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor:

>[]

>> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be
>> accomplished by 3D-printing.
>

>not the wiring! (at lease not by the 3-d printers available today)
>
>Sorry, but your dream will have to wait.
>
>ed
>
>---

Here's a video of showing the operation of a gas engine:

EXACTLY how a car engine works - 3D animation !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfTX88Sv4I8

It's complex in its construction and operation. It requires high
temperatures and high pressures. Moreover, the multiple pistons moving at
high speed within the cylinders require tight tolerances.

The DC electric engine I linked in the first post in this thread is
significantly simpler. Actually, the Tesla uses an AC electric motor, just a
little more complicated in its construction, but it has an advantage in not
needing permanent magnets.

Another advantage of the electric cars both using DC and AC motors is that
they don't need a multi-gear transmissions. This is also a significant
simplification.

Here's a video describing the electric motor of the Tesla and its single
speed transmission:

How does an Electric Car work ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SAxXUIre28

About the copper wire winding, ideally, you would want the entire car to be
3D-printed, but you could have most of the electric motor be 3D printed and
the copper wire windings placed separately.

For the "binder jetting method" of metal 3D-printing, most similar to the
method amateurs use for plastic 3D-printing, it would be difficult to create
also the wire windings at the same time as the electric motor. The reason is
it requires an additional step of heating at high temperature and the wire
insulation would melt. Perhaps there could be used high temperature ceramic
coating for the wires.

Other methods for 3D-metal printing such as electron beam and laser
deposition do not require this extra step of furnace heating so should be
able to do the copper wire winding, assuming the 3D-printer has the
capability of rapidly switching out the material being deposited between
metal and plastic as needed, or perhaps using separate print heads for each
material.

For instance, if you imagine a horizontal slice through the electric motor.
You would have wire insulation, then the copper wire, then insulation, then
copper wire, and this pattern would be repeated, then you would have the
core, then the insulation, copper pattern repeated again. A 3D-printing
method that could rapidly switch between depositing metal and plastic
insulation material should be able to do this.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 8:31:23 AM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
>>> An article from 2015:
>>>
>>> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
>>> 4:48
>>> p.m. EST November 12, 2015
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>>>
>>> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars,
>>> but
>>> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine.
>>>
>>> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with
>>> its
>>> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances.
>>
>>Difficult, but not impossible. NASA has done 3-d printing of rocket
>>combustion chambers.
>>

Cite? I don't believe that's true.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Yes and yes.

> I am allowing for the idea that some other method may
> be invented that perhaps images the item in multiple
> dimensions at once. Don't ask me how it works because
> no one invented it yet.

It is called a transporter and doesn't really exist.

> If you had asked computer experts in the 1940's how to build
> a computer that was desktop sized, they would not have a clue
> and would likely say "Impossible!" OR that current technology
> of vacuum tubes would not be the solution and new materials
> and designs would be needed.

Computers of the 40's were up against current technology.

3D printing is mostly up against basic physics and geometry.

>> > Now I did notice, Jim, you changed from Never to 50 years.
>> > You might be right on that time frame. IOW, I agree that
>> > some of these predictions are very optimistic.
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about?
>
> I was being generous from your comment in another post:
>> So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.

Yep, the word "niche" meaning low volume production.

3D printing will never be used to produce 2 liter soda bottles or
anything else that can be produced cheaper with traditional methods.

> But if you want to stick to "never", then I can't help you.
>
> ed

--
Jim Pennino

[k...@notreal.com]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 23:30:45 -0700, Fred J. McCall

<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>>><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because it is fast and cheap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>>>>>lives...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying that castings are not good?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm saying what I said.
>>
>>I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess
>>there wasn't any to make.
>>
>
>I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real
>world, but I can't fix you.

So's your old man. (what a loser!)

[k...@notreal.com]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:05:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall

It's good that you show everyone what you're really worth.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I do.
>>>>
>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense
>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to
>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough,
>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other
>>>> projects.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto everything you make.
>>>
>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
>>> it was produced.
>>>
>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
>>> add no functionality and just increase the price.
>>>
>>>
>> What price?
>
>The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store.

Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated.

>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the
>> cost of slightly more complex software.
>
>Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction
>of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense.
>
>Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost
>of the honyecomb nonsense.
>
>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.
>
>The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded
>manufacturing cost.

Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit.

>> So, by that metric, they're cheaper.
>
>If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb
>handle costs several cents, which is cheaper?

Not the one with the better ad agency. ;-)

[k...@notreal.com]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:28:43 -0700, Fred J. McCall

So, because camper shells and ski boats are made out of composites,
he's trailer trash. Got it.

>
>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp
>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and
>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since
>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place,
>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials.

Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete
pump is a 3-D printer, too.

>>>>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for
>>>having your head up and locked.
>>
>>Seems like someone insulted your binkie.
>>
>
>Every time we see the Chimp around here he is arguing a stupid
>position adamantly. Perhaps you and he should get a room?

You should look in a mirror, kid.

[k...@notreal.com]

You'd argue that every color is the same? The fact is that marketing
differentiates their product from the competition by making stuff
*look* different. Similar, sure, but that's the way fashion goes. A
few years ago every car looked pretty much the same but that's not the
same "same" as it is now.

[Fred J. McCall]

Wow, you're just remarkably stupid. Because those are the only things
he can find that are made out of composites he's trailer trash.

>>
>>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp
>>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and
>>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since
>>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place,
>>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials.
>
>Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete
>pump is a 3-D printer, too.
>

So are you disagreeing that concrete is a composite? Why do you think
there is a connection between 'composite' and '3-D printer'? If you
don't, were you just compelled to say something stupid?

>>>>>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for
>>>>having your head up and locked.
>>>
>>>Seems like someone insulted your binkie.
>>>
>>
>>Every time we see the Chimp around here he is arguing a stupid
>>position adamantly. Perhaps you and he should get a room?
>
>You should look in a mirror, kid.
>

You should pull your head out of your ass, old and moldering one.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense
>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to
>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough,
>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other
>>>>> projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ditto everything you make.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
>>>> it was produced.
>>>>
>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What price?
>>
>>The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store.
>
> Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated.

For government projects mainly but not for consumer products.

>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the
>>> cost of slightly more complex software.
>>
>>Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction
>>of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense.
>>
>>Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost
>>of the honyecomb nonsense.
>>
>>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.
>>
>>The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded
>>manufacturing cost.
>
> Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit.

profit = sales price - loaded manufacturing cost

>>> So, by that metric, they're cheaper.
>>
>>If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb
>>handle costs several cents, which is cheaper?
>
> Not the one with the better ad agency. ;-)

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

No, but most are chrome.

> The fact is that marketing
> differentiates their product from the competition by making stuff
> *look* different. Similar, sure, but that's the way fashion goes. A
> few years ago every car looked pretty much the same but that's not the
> same "same" as it is now.

For toasters the differences are in the unnecessary bells and whistles.

--
Jim Pennino

[David Mitchell]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I do.
>>>>
>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense
>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to
>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough,
>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other
>>>> projects.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto everything you make.
>>>
>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
>>> it was produced.
>>>
>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
>>> add no functionality and just increase the price.
>>>
>>>
>> What price?
>
> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store.
>
>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the
>> cost of slightly more complex software.
>
> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction
> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense.

What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is?
- Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled,
- Power, minimal,
- Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print?

These are all very small.

>
> Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost
> of the honyecomb nonsense.
>
>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.
>
> The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded
> manufacturing cost.
>
>> So, by that metric, they're cheaper.
>
> If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb
> handle costs several cents, which is cheaper?
>
>

You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing.
I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things
you fabricate them.

In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears,
because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does
(which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they
have a larger fabricator than you).

[Fred J. McCall]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense
>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to
>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough,
>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other
>>>>>> projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ditto everything you make.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
>>>>> it was produced.
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What price?
>>>
>>>The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store.
>>
>> Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated.
>
>For government projects mainly but not for consumer products.
>

No, for everything, actually.

>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the
>>>> cost of slightly more complex software.
>>>
>>>Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction
>>>of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense.
>>>
>>>Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost
>>>of the honyecomb nonsense.
>>>
>>>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.
>>>
>>>The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded
>>>manufacturing cost.
>>
>> Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit.
>
>profit = sales price - loaded manufacturing cost
>

True but irrelevant, since 'sales price' can be anything the
manufacturer cares to charge.

[Sегg io]

He has already shown he does not have any.

[Edward Prochak]

The analogous argument with computers would have been:
we already have many ways to compute like
people (the original "computers")
relay machines, and vacuum tube machines

>
> Key issues are Quality, Cost, and Time.
> and we dont know the whole story yet.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT!

So you may have disagreed with the comparison to the
development of computer technology, but it looks like
you agree with the conclusion.

3-D printing technology is in the beginning stages of
its development. What the ultimate method that is used
is unknown to us here and now.

Have a good day.
ed

[Robert Clark]

> ...

>
>Say, you wanted to make a steel engine within a machine operating volume 3

>feet wide on a side. This would require 3^3 = 27 of the current machines

>(or a single one scaled up this size.) Say, the engine weighed 270 kilos,
>that's 270,000 grams. Say the weight is equally distributed among the 27
>machines, so 270,000/27 = 10,000 grams for each machine.
>The density of steel is about 8 gms/cm3. So that's 10,000/8 = 1,250 cm3.
>This would then take 1,250/8,200 =.15 hours, or 9 minutes to make the
>complete engine.
>
>It's notable in this video the company's chief engineer says their system
>could be scaled up to make an automobile chassis:
>
>VIDEO: How Additive Manufacturing Can Produce Metal Parts en Masse. James
>Anderton posted on June 06, 2017 |
>http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/15052/VIDEO-How-Additive-Manufacturing-Can-Produce-Metal-Parts-en-Masse.aspx
>
>One imagines also, it could be scaled up to make the complete automobile.
>
>

I was estimating that size of the engine based on cited high horsepower for
the Tesla cars. But I was surprised the mass and volume required for the
Tesla electric motor is much smaller than a comparable gasoline engine. This
video makes a comparison of a Tesla electric motor to a typical gas engine.
The power to weight ratio is 10 times better for the Tesla electric motor(!)

How does an Electric Car work ? | Tesla Model S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SAxXUIre28&t=220s

The video gives the weight of the Tesla motor as 31.8 kg for 270 kW of
power. The size of the motor visually looks like it just might fit within
the 14"x14"x14" manufacturing box of the DeskTop Metal's Production machine,
though the rotor's central driveshaft might have to be produced at an angle
to make use of the full diagonal length of sqrt(3)*14" = 24" inside the
box. So instead of needing 27 of the machines I estimated before, we might
be able to make it with just a single one:

For a 32 kg = 32,000 gm engine say of steel with a density of 8 gm/cm^3,
this is 32,000/8 = 4,000 cm^3. At a production rate of about 8,000 cm^3 per
hour, the Tesla engine could be produced in about a half-hour by this single
machine.

[Sегg io]

well, the 3-D printing technology is fully understood, just a 3 axis
positioner with material feed. only the feed rates, heating rates,
cooling rates are empirically determined

but it is one at a time production, not good for mass production.

And it is no good for most applications, too slow, poor quality, weak
material, requires too much energy compaired to other technologies.

Printing, one has to Melt all of the material, deposit it, cool it.
With stamping, no need for any of that.

and strength, hardening is poor, lots of voids, same as welding,

Printing is already in use in key nitch applications or for prototypes,
but will not be used in most.

think so? then who you going to call when you have a problem or need to
re-program it ? (...crickets...) Microsoft ?

Wall Street Buzz is high on it, but they are selling the sizzle.

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 3:21:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
[]

>
> Here's a video of showing the operation of a gas engine:
>
> EXACTLY how a car engine works - 3D animation !
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfTX88Sv4I8
>
> It's complex in its construction and operation. It requires high
> temperatures and high pressures. Moreover, the multiple pistons moving at
> high speed within the cylinders require tight tolerances.

So 3-d printing can handle the tight tolerances of a complete electric
car but not a combustion engine? You cannot have it both ways.

>
> The DC electric engine I linked in the first post in this thread is
> significantly simpler. Actually, the Tesla uses an AC electric motor, just a
> little more complicated in its construction, but it has an advantage in not
> needing permanent magnets.
>
> Another advantage of the electric cars both using DC and AC motors is that
> they don't need a multi-gear transmissions. This is also a significant
> simplification.

true, but electric motors are much more complex than
combustion motors.

>
> Here's a video describing the electric motor of the Tesla and its single
> speed transmission:

irrelevant.

>
> About the copper wire winding, ideally, you would want the entire car to be
> 3D-printed, but you could have most of the electric motor be 3D printed and
> the copper wire windings placed separately.

Hmm. Abandoned your dream already. I'm not saying its a bad dream.
I'm just pointing out it is a long way out there.

BTW same could be done for combustion engine vehicles.
Apply 3-d printing where it provides the greatest advantage
is the next stage of development. Currently 3-d printing
is mainly used for prototypes.

>
> For the "binder jetting method" of metal 3D-printing, most similar to the
> method amateurs use for plastic 3D-printing, it would be difficult to create
> also the wire windings at the same time as the electric motor. The reason is
> it requires an additional step of heating at high temperature and the wire
> insulation would melt. Perhaps there could be used high temperature ceramic
> coating for the wires.

That may be a long term solution. About 50 years or more, I guess.

>
> Other methods for 3D-metal printing such as electron beam and laser
> deposition do not require this extra step of furnace heating so should be
> able to do the copper wire winding, assuming the 3D-printer has the
> capability of rapidly switching out the material being deposited between
> metal and plastic as needed, or perhaps using separate print heads for each
> material.

Separate print heads assumes an inkjet model. These deposition methods
do not have print heads. they lay down a layer of powder and then melt it
where it needs to form the image.

>
> For instance, if you imagine a horizontal slice through the electric motor.
> You would have wire insulation, then the copper wire, then insulation, then
> copper wire, and this pattern would be repeated, then you would have the
> core, then the insulation, copper pattern repeated again. A 3D-printing
> method that could rapidly switch between depositing metal and plastic
> insulation material should be able to do this.
>

I can imaging it at a conceptual level. I cannot see how to
implement it at a practical level. Ink jet printers spit out
precise amount of ink because of the properties of the ink
(water based, using heat to boil out a precise drop).

Assuming you can route molten metal to a print head nozzle,
I cannot see at this point how to keep it molten down to
a tip the size needed for the precision required. And then
dispense precise volume of molten metal.

There just has to be another way.

I do admire your enthusiasm though.
ed
>
> Bob Clark

>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
> launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
> ---------------------------------------------------

PS
Current 3-d printing tech is not nanotech IMHO. ed

[Edward Prochak]

Yes for plastics and such. The 3-d tech for metals is still,
I contend, in its infancy.

>
> but it is one at a time production, not good for mass production.
>
> And it is no good for most applications, too slow, poor quality, weak
> material, requires too much energy compaired to other technologies.

Yes, in the current stage of development of 3-d printing tech
I totally agree.

>
> Printing, one has to Melt all of the material, deposit it, cool it.
> With stamping, no need for any of that.
>
> and strength, hardening is poor, lots of voids, same as welding,
>
> Printing is already in use in key nitch applications or for prototypes,
> but will not be used in most.

Agree, for now.

>
> think so? then who you going to call when you have a problem or need to
> re-program it ? (...crickets...) Microsoft ?

Not sure what this comment referred to.

>
> Wall Street Buzz is high on it, but they are selling the sizzle.

Yep.
ed

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Cost recovery for most materials is trivial.

> - Power, minimal,

For 3D metal printing, lots of power.

> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print?

Babble.

>
> These are all very small.

For techniques such as molding, yes.

>> Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost
>> of the honyecomb nonsense.
>>
>>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.
>>
>> The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded
>> manufacturing cost.
>>
>>> So, by that metric, they're cheaper.
>>
>> If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb
>> handle costs several cents, which is cheaper?
>>
>>
> You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing.
> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things
> you fabricate them.

Pure fantasy.

> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears,
> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does
> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they
> have a larger fabricator than you).

Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

[Sегg io]

it is the maintenance stage of a product,
how much maintenance will it require, and who does it.
how complex it is,

I think right now it is tied to the MFGR.