A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old July 7th 17, 06:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

In sci.physics wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:40 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

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.

And all look about the same.

Not so much:

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


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

https://www.google.com/search?q=toas...w=1327&bih=868


You'd argue that every color is the same?


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
  #72  
Old July 7th 17, 06:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
David Mitchell[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
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).

  #73  
Old July 7th 17, 10:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
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.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #75  
Old July 7th 17, 03:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.


...

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/AdvancedM...-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.

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/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--

  #76  
Old July 7th 17, 06:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
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,


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
  #77  
Old July 7th 17, 08:34 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.electronics.design
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

....

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.


The Desktop Metal system is more akin to inkjet printing and does not use
powders:

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


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/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

  #78  
Old July 7th 17, 09:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000, wrote:

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


Yes, especially if the shape is optimized for a particular class of
customer. For example, women prefer rounded corners while men prefer
angular corners. A red toaster would not sell in the US because it
implies that the toast will be incinerated. In China, red means good
luck. In the west, making the slots wide enough to handle a bagel is
required. In other parts of the world, few have ever seen a bagel. To
a home user, a gaudy decorated toaster might be acceptable. To a
restaurant, it's difficult to keep clean. In short, there's no
optimum shape for a toaster.

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.


And all look about the same.


Not so much:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/

For any given era they look pretty much the same to me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&tbm=isch (tracking stuff deleted JL)


New designs are constantly appearing:
https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster+concept+designs&tbm=isch

This one looks promising:
https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/01/zaffrantoaster1.jpeg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg

The problem is that US consumers are easily bored and confused by
popular designs, especially if they are all at the same price level.
They find it difficult to differentiate the various offerings. One
might expect people to buy on the basis of specs, reviews, and
endorsements. Nope. They pick up the toasters and compare the
relative weights. When in doubt, anything that weighs the most must
be the better value or at least the most long lasting. Second best is
the buyers response to various subliminal messages imbedded in the
product, packaging, and advertising.

One of the major benefits of 3D printing is rapid prototyping. If rev
1.0 doesn't work quite right, rev 2.0 can quickly follow. That's
great if you don't know what you want or are into design by trial and
error. If you're trying to assemble something complicated, and are
not sure that everything will fit and work together, there's nothing
better than 3D printing. However, for manufacture, you probably want
many copies of the same item, all identical. The ability of the 3D
machinery to quickly customize or change the design is wasted on
mindless replication. Best to use the existing manufacturing
techniques, which are cheaper and faster.

Incidentally, I know four owners of various 3D printing machines. Two
are college students and two are hobbyists. Most of the time, the
machines are idle. The common comment is that the machine was not
what they had expected after reading all the hype. All of them have
2D XY plotters/cutters that are far more useful for making useful
things.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #79  
Old July 7th 17, 10:03 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.electronics.design
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

"Robert Clark" wrote:

...

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.


The Desktop Metal system is more akin to inkjet printing and does not use
powders:

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


Uh, Bob? The video says it uses powders.


--
"Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood. I ain't naming names.
She really worked me over good. She was just like Jesse James.
She really worked me over good. She was a credit to her gender.
She put me through some changes, Lord.
Sort of like a Waring blender."
-- Warren Zevon, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me"
  #80  
Old July 7th 17, 10:22 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.electronics.design
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

"Robert Clark" wrote:

...

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.


The Desktop Metal system is more akin to inkjet printing and does not use
powders:

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


Uh, Bob? The video says it uses powders.



Bound into solid rods with a binder similar to the solid rods used for
plastic 3D-printing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fused_deposition_modeling


Bob Clark
--

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The future of electric cars FredKartoffel Amateur Astronomy 103 June 21st 16 04:48 PM
Cars Only Need a 20 HP motor(electric) G=EMC^2TreBert Misc 3 March 6th 15 01:08 AM
3D Printed Rocket William Mook[_2_] Policy 8 January 17th 14 12:24 PM
better way of seeing noise before image is printed? Jason Albertson Amateur Astronomy 24 March 7th 07 06:46 AM
other planets that have lightning bolts-- do they have plate tectonics ?? do the experiment with electric motor and also Faradays first electric motor is this the Oersted experiment writ large on the size of continental plates a_plutonium Astronomy Misc 4 September 16th 06 01:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.