XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design
From: fjmccall@gmail.com
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>> In article , 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.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
