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

Started by Robert Clark July 3, 2017
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>My estimate is that for all things manufactured parts that can be made >>>>>cheaper and faster by conventional means amount to about 99.99%. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And the world will only need 3 computers. Usual Chimp wisdom. >>> >>>Kiss my ass Red Herring McTroll. >>> >> >> You're all ass, Chimp. >> > >You're all nasty troll. > >*PLONK* >
Let me put things in terms you can understand, Chimp. OoooOOOOooooOOOOoooOO. -- You are What you do When it counts.
In article <slnq2e-pn7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
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.
> 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. 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. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 16:44:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:02:35 -0500, Joe Chisolm > <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 09:54:51 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 11:09:23 -0500, Joe Chisolm >>> <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 08:31:17 -0400, Robert Clark wrote: >>>> >>>>> An article from 2015: >>>>> >>>>> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 4:48 >>>>> p.m. EST November 12, 2015 >>>>>
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>>>>> >>>>> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, but >>>>> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine. >>>>> >>>>> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with its >>>>> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances. >>>>> >>>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>> 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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >>>>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> Nanotech was the hot wave of the future 10 or 15 years ago. Aren't >>> people tired of buckyballs and nanotubes and graphene yet? >>> >>>> >>>>Similar principle as 3d printing, GE Additive is making jet engine parts >>>> >>>>http://www.geadditive.com/ >>> >>> But you couldn't 3D print a copper coil or a supermagnet or a ball >>> bearing. And additive is *slow*. >> >>3D printers are a part of the process. They give you the ability to generate >>shapes that cannot be easily machined and that opens up a lot of new
possibilities.
>>Possibly an air bearing to replace the ball bearing. > > 3D fab the compressor, too? > > The bulk of an electric motor is made of stacked stampings, something > like grain-oriented silicon steel. That's cheap to make and has good > mechanical and magnetic properties. > >> >>Granted jet engines are low volume high dollar items but with bigger build >>areas you can print multiple copies of the same part at the same time. Most >>CNC cannot do that. You CNC build 1 part at a time but rather fast. If I >>can print 10 parts at the same time on the same machine at < 10x the CNC time >>then I'm ahead of the game and I get complex shapes the CNC cannot do. > > Probably 100x the machining time. So far, additive is mostly demo > mode, more expensive than conventional processing. > > Additive fab is fine, but it's mostly hype now.
Anything but hype. The CFM Leap engine fuel nozzels are additive. GE is putting $400M into the turboprop for Cessna and many parts will be 3D. They say 3D is letting them consolidate 845 parts into just 11 components. Reduces overall complexity, inspection cost and maintaince cost. And they are predicting 20% less fuel burn. Not just GE. Siemens is working on 3D gas turbine blades. From their Feb 2017 presser "Siemens has achieved a breakthrough by finishing its first full load engine tests for gas turbine blades completely produced using Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology. The company successfully validated multiple AM printed turbine blades with a conventional blade design at full engine conditions. This means the components were tested at 13,000 revolutions per minute and temperatures beyond 1,250 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, Siemens tested a new blade design with a completely revised and improved internal cooling geometry manufactured using the AM technology." Additive will probably never replace stamped or many formed or cast parts but you never know. Years ago a billion transistors on a wafer was pure fantasy. -- Chisolm Republic of Texas
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> 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. >> >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? >> >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. > > "Nobody needs more than 640K" > > I don't really think it's sensible to say "never" wrt technology - you're > judging a very immature technology > > The biggest problem wrt printing vehicles will, I suspect, be the legislation > governing safety.
Nope, economics. It takes a fraction of a second to stamp out a sheet metal automobile body part out of standard sheet metal stock. I fail to understand why geeks think 3D printing is the ultimate answer to manufacturing when it is in fact slow and expensive. -- Jim Pennino
On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:10:52 -0500, Joe Chisolm
<jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 16:44:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:02:35 -0500, Joe Chisolm >> <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 09:54:51 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 11:09:23 -0500, Joe Chisolm >>>> <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 08:31:17 -0400, Robert Clark wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> An article from 2015: >>>>>> >>>>>> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 4:48 >>>>>> p.m. EST November 12, 2015 >>>>>>
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>>>>>> >>>>>> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, but >>>>>> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine. >>>>>> >>>>>> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with its >>>>>> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances. >>>>>> >>>>>[snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >>>>>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >>>> Nanotech was the hot wave of the future 10 or 15 years ago. Aren't >>>> people tired of buckyballs and nanotubes and graphene yet? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Similar principle as 3d printing, GE Additive is making jet engine parts >>>>> >>>>>http://www.geadditive.com/ >>>> >>>> But you couldn't 3D print a copper coil or a supermagnet or a ball >>>> bearing. And additive is *slow*. >>> >>>3D printers are a part of the process. They give you the ability to generate >>>shapes that cannot be easily machined and that opens up a lot of new
possibilities.
>>>Possibly an air bearing to replace the ball bearing. >> >> 3D fab the compressor, too? >> >> The bulk of an electric motor is made of stacked stampings, something >> like grain-oriented silicon steel. That's cheap to make and has good >> mechanical and magnetic properties. >> >>> >>>Granted jet engines are low volume high dollar items but with bigger build >>>areas you can print multiple copies of the same part at the same time. Most >>>CNC cannot do that. You CNC build 1 part at a time but rather fast. If I >>>can print 10 parts at the same time on the same machine at < 10x the CNC time >>>then I'm ahead of the game and I get complex shapes the CNC cannot do. >> >> Probably 100x the machining time. So far, additive is mostly demo >> mode, more expensive than conventional processing. >> >> Additive fab is fine, but it's mostly hype now. > >Anything but hype. The CFM Leap engine fuel nozzels are additive. GE is putting >$400M into the turboprop for Cessna and many parts will be 3D. They say 3D is >letting them consolidate 845 parts into just 11 components. Reduces overall >complexity, inspection cost and maintaince cost. And they are predicting >20% less fuel burn.
Additive manufacturing can't take credit for the improved fuel efficiency. 15-20% is the target for the new generation of engines, like GTF. One interesting thing about consolidating a lot of parts into one 3D printed part is that when anything wears out, you have to replace the whole thing. 3D printing *is* mostly hype. You're going to see a lot of 3D printers and fidget spinners and IoT-enabled lightbulbs at garage sales soon. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <slnq2e-pn7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > 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?
> Jeff
-- Jim Pennino
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>> An article from 2015: >> >> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY >> 4:48 >> p.m. EST November 12, 2015 >>
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>> >> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, >> but >> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine. >> >> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with >> its >> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances. >> >> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact >> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the >> home, >> an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, >> 3D-printed >> car. >> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully >> 3D-printed automobile. >> >> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously. >> >> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission. >> >> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor: >> >> How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA >> >> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be >> accomplished >> by 3D-printing. >> >> >> 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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Arm waving nonsense. > >You need multiple 3D printers if you need to print with multiple materials. > >Consumer 3D printers print small parts from cheap plastic and cost hundreds >of dollars. > >Industrial 3D printers that print large parts with metals cost hundreds of >thousands of dollars and the printing material costs more than raw metal >stock. > >3D printing is advantageous for parts with complex shapes that are >difficult >or impossible to make with other techniques but is disadvantageous for >most parts that ARE manufacturable with conventional techniques as they >can be made faster and cheaper. > >3D printing makes PARTS that still need to be assembled. > >3D printing an electric motor is just silly. > >
-- In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>> An article from 2015: >> >> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY >> 4:48 >> p.m. EST November 12, 2015 >>
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/
>> >> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, >> but >> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine. >> >> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with >> its >> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances. >> >> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact >> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the >> home, >> an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, >> 3D-printed >> car. >> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully >> 3D-printed automobile. >> >> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously. >> >> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission. >> >> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor: >> >> How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA >> >> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be >> accomplished >> by 3D-printing. >> >> >> 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/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Arm waving nonsense. > >You need multiple 3D printers if you need to print with multiple materials. > >Consumer 3D printers print small parts from cheap plastic and cost hundreds >of dollars. > >Industrial 3D printers that print large parts with metals cost hundreds of >thousands of dollars and the printing material costs more than raw metal >stock. > >3D printing is advantageous for parts with complex shapes that are >difficult >or impossible to make with other techniques but is disadvantageous for >most parts that ARE manufacturable with conventional techniques as they >can be made faster and cheaper. > >3D printing makes PARTS that still need to be assembled. > >3D printing an electric motor is just silly. > > >
-- You are correct that metal 3D-printed parts by amateurs were only designed by them, but had to be actually printed by one of the large 3D-printing companies. Still, that leaves open the possibility that a scale-model car could be designed by amateurs to be fully 3D-printed by one of the large companies. The largest of the professional, metal 3D-printers common now can 3D-print parts about a foot across and cost about $250,000. So you can imagine a 3D-printer that can 3D-print parts, say, 10 feet across, would be 10^3 = 1,000 times larger in volume and mass, and perhaps a thousand times more expensive, to $250 million. An expensive proposition. But if it can be shown a scale-model car can be fully 3D-printed then it might be worthwhile for a large industrial company to invest in this when it would mean any car of any model could be 3D-printed on demand. Bob Clark
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

>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.
Sometimes you light-weight a part too far. Back in 1985, my mechanic called me in to look at a repair. The new brake disk was much heavier and much less "organic". But the original one warped because it didn't have enough mass to absorb the heat till it could be radiated away, and the manufacturer provided a much simpler but heavier replacement part. The new part was so much different looking than the original one that he wanted my permission to proceed. (As a 400 pound guy who likes to drive econobox microcars, I always seem to have alignment and brake problems only on the front left. Hmmm?) -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:

>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> 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. >> >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? >> >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. > >"Nobody needs more than 640K" > >I don't really think it's sensible to say "never" wrt technology - you're >judging a very immature technology
The Altair was obsolete in two years. The Apple ][ was obsolete in five, though genius level reworkings kept it going for what, 12? The context for that quote was the decision to build a computer with ten times the memory capacity of the normal business computer out there at the time, with the expectation that they would totally revamp the design in a few years. Remember that was the time when Microsoft bet big on Unix as the next big thing. Nobody expected to be finding ISA compatible computers running a compatible OS 35 years later.
> >The biggest problem wrt printing vehicles will, I suspect, be the legislation >governing safety.
-- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 19:16:09 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com  wrote:

> Whoopee. It is still niche. > > Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?
Today no. In 50 years I reckon they will, as shape optimised means a fraction of the material used. NT