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
  #41  
Old July 6th 17, 02:04 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

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.
  #42  
Old July 6th 17, 02:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default 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  
Old July 6th 17, 02:22 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 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
  #45  
Old July 6th 17, 03:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default 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  
Old July 6th 17, 03:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default 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  
Old July 6th 17, 03:28 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:

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  
Old July 6th 17, 06:06 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 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
 




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 08:20 AM.


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.