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

Started by Robert Clark July 3, 2017
On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 07:16:34 UTC+1, David Mitchell  wrote:
> John Larkin wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:02:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > > >> I fail to understand why geeks think 3D printing is the ultimate answer > >> to manufacturing when it is in fact slow and expensive. > > > > There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting. > > It is slow and expensive, *at the moment*, but it won't always be; and one of > the ways it will start to be rapid and cheap is by fabricating things which make > other things. > > So, for example, it will make moulds, and the machinery to use them, which will > combine the advantages of bespoke design with the speed and low-cost of > traditional manufacturing. > > Similarly, it will fabricate machines which wind, for example, copper wire onto > cast armatures.
Making 3D printing faster & cheaper is a challenge. How might it be done? - many nozzles instead of 1 - machines that replicate and stack many high - machines that run without human input, either entirely or mostly, thus mostly eliminating walkways etc - maybe stacked cube shaped printers could be weatherproof and run outdoors. - machines sense where there is already plastic and fast forward past those places. Now blocks or generic preformed shapes can be placed on the print bed to save time. Or even waste plastic lumps. - machines place sand particles as well as plastic. Place molten plastic, then adding a sand grain doubles construction rate (very roughly) as well as reducing material cost. It's all maybes, but fairly likely maybes. Meanwhile 3d is already massively faster & will be much cheaper in house construction, a major industry. NT
On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 07:21:07 UTC+1, David Mitchell  wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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.
Fast forward well into the future & your household goods will be regularly reprinted to new designs that use ever less material. NT
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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. -- Jim Pennino
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > 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. So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>> > 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. > > You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the > aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester.
I didn't choose the groups and it is being posted to other groups as well. In the overall scheme of things, aerospace is a niche industry.
>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? > > This isn't sci.toaster.
Nor is is sci.niche.
> > Jeff
-- Jim Pennino
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> schrieb:

> 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.
One nice thing about 3D printing is that you can create voids in places you cannot with conventional technologies. This can help a _lot_ when putting in cooling channels (wildly important for turbine manufacturers who always fight for that extra 10 K of maximum temperature to get that extra bit of efficiency), or when you can put in a void where you don't actually need material, and all it would do would be to add mass and/or create thermal stress on heating up or cooling down.
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> 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... -- You are What you do When it counts.
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> 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.
> >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.
>>> > 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. >> >> You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the >> aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester. > >I didn't choose the groups and it is being posted to other groups as >well. >
You didn't? Do you not know how your newsreader works, or what? -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson
In article <u6iv2e-m1p.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
says...
> > 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.
Lightweight metal silverware is a bit of a niche area, but there is an existing market. Titanium spork is a popular item for backpackers. It's insane how light those things are. Backpackers will spend big bucks to shave an ounce off of a piece of equipment. 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.
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <u6iv2e-m1p.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> 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. > > Lightweight metal silverware is a bit of a niche area, but there is an > existing market. Titanium spork is a popular item for backpackers. > It's insane how light those things are. Backpackers will spend big > bucks to shave an ounce off of a piece of equipment. > > Jeff
What do you think the market may be for 3D printed frizzens? -- Jim Pennino
On Thursday, 6 July 2017 00:16:09 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com  wrote:

> What do you think the market may be for 3D printed frizzens?
frozen in time NT