|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote: wrote: In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote: In article , 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? 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. Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in the real world. 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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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. -- Jim Pennino |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: In sci.physics John Larkin 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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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/ |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote: In article , 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? 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. Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in the real world. 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" 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? -- You are What you do When it counts. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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 -- Jim Pennino |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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? 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 12:08 AM |
3D Printed Rocket | William Mook[_2_] | Policy | 8 | January 17th 14 11:24 AM |
better way of seeing noise before image is printed? | Jason Albertson | Amateur Astronomy | 24 | March 7th 07 05:46 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 |