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