XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design
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 wrote:
>>>>> In article , 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-G8fPUAh
Cv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
