|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
"Robert Clark" wrote:
"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, go watch your original video. Much about powder spreaders. Nothing about solid rods. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:00:07 -0000, wrote:
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. Huh, I could have sworn I'd seen black, red, and white ones. 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. OK, please tell me the technical reason that car grilles, these days, look like ugly shark teeth and tail lights like silly raptor eyes. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
In sci.physics wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:00:07 -0000, wrote: 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. Huh, I could have sworn I'd seen black, red, and white ones. most - adjective 1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree 2 the majority of 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. OK, please tell me the technical reason that car grilles, these days, look like ugly shark teeth and tail lights like silly raptor eyes. The same technical reason that toasters have unnecessary bells and whistles. -- Jim Pennino |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
wrote:
In sci.physics wrote: On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:00:07 -0000, wrote: 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. Huh, I could have sworn I'd seen black, red, and white ones. most - adjective 1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree 2 the majority of Post your data supporting this preposterous claim. If you'd said "most have some chrome on them" that might be supportable, but not what you said. 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. OK, please tell me the technical reason that car grilles, these days, look like ugly shark teeth and tail lights like silly raptor eyes. The same technical reason that toasters have unnecessary bells and whistles. The Chimp is now just slapping his chest and throwing dust. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
wrote:
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. Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according to a plan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization These are all very small. For techniques such as molding, yes. And for mature fabrication technology. I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things you fabricate them. Pure fantasy. Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. Your turn. 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. Again, please justify that comment. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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. Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according to a plan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization These are all very small. For techniques such as molding, yes. And for mature fabrication technology. I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things you fabricate them. Pure fantasy. Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating their own things. I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight store. How many people do you know that own any of the above? Your turn. 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. Again, please justify that comment. The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years ago. Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things as trivial as bread. -- Jim Pennino |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: 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. Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according to a plan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization These are all very small. For techniques such as molding, yes. And for mature fabrication technology. I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things you fabricate them. Pure fantasy. Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating their own things. I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight store. How many people do you know that own any of the above? Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology would be, nor as easy to use. Again, please justify that comment. The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years ago. Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things as trivial as bread. Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading feedstock and pressing a button. Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's primarly digital content these days. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
"Robert Clark" wrote:
"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, go watch your original video. Much about powder spreaders. Nothing about solid rods. Ok, sorry. There is a difference between the Desktop Metal Studio system and the Desktop Metal Production system. Their studio system is meant to be used in an office setting and both the metal powder and the binder are combined together into solid rods. DM's chief technology officer makes the point this was done for safety reasons to be used for prototyping in an office setting: Metal additive manufacturing--using a desktop 3D printer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZehOWpZPITk DM's production system however is for rapid, volume production and is meant for an industrial, factory setting and the binder and the metal powder are laid down separately. Bob Clark -- |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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. Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according to a plan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization These are all very small. For techniques such as molding, yes. And for mature fabrication technology. I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things you fabricate them. Pure fantasy. Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating their own things. I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight store. How many people do you know that own any of the above? Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology would be, nor as easy to use. Obviously you have never seen a N/C milling machine in action nor payed for raw stock. Again, please justify that comment. The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years ago. Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things as trivial as bread. Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading feedstock and pressing a button. Obviously you have never seen a real 3D printer in action nor have you ever made bread. Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's primarly digital content these days. Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense. -- Jim Pennino |
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 |