XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   krw@notreal.com wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:28:43 -0700, Fred J. McCall   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >So, because camper shells and ski boats are made out of composites,   
   >he's trailer trash.  Got it.   
   >   
      
   Wow, you're just remarkably stupid.  Because those are the only things   
   he can find that are made out of composites he's 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.   
   >   
   >Oh, good grief.  I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete   
   >pump is a 3-D printer, too.   
   >   
      
   So are you disagreeing that concrete is a composite?  Why do you think   
   there is a connection between 'composite' and '3-D printer'?  If you   
   don't, were you just compelled to say something stupid?   
      
   >>>>>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 should look in a mirror, kid.   
   >   
      
   You should pull your head out of your ass, old and moldering one.   
      
      
   --   
   "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar   
    territory."   
                                         --G. Behn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)