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

Started by Robert Clark July 3, 2017
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

>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...
Are you saying that castings are not good?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>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?
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.
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.
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.
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:14:09 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 01:04:14 UTC+1, Robert Clark wrote: > >> 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. > >Goods don't usually go up in price proportionally to volume.
There is no reason to expect it would, particularly since the device would be mostly air. Higher speed would cost more but to just produce larger widgets wouldn't scale linearly.
>And like anything in its infancy 3D printers are coming down in price rapidly.
Everything electronic, anyway.
>> 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 > >Jay Leno already gets 3d printed car parts made for old machines with zero spares
availability. Custom cars might become a lot more popular in future, who knows - if so 3d can do that. Whether it will ever compete with stamped metal I've very little idea. We hear emotive arguments but nothing very solid. At best we can say 3d printing is slow, whereas stamping & casting are heavy, wasteful, shape restricted and require way more assembly time.
> > >NT
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>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? > > 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
krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall ><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >>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... >> > >Are you saying that castings are not good? >
I'm saying what I said. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

>krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall >><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>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... >>> >> >>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.
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:40 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>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? >> >> 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/
krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall ><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >>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. > >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.
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:40 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>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? >>> >>> 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=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 -- Jim Pennino