4 ms·

What's interesting, but kind of glossed over in the article, is it's not just your typical plastic 3D printer. This thing prints metal objects, which could conc

by foldor 13y ago

What's interesting, but kind of glossed over in the article, is it's not just your typical plastic 3D printer. This thing prints metal objects, which could conceivably be used for car parts.

alexhawdon 13y ago
Apparently there's a key patent that's just expired[1] that some claim will have a big impact on the market. I'm not in a position to comment but, if true, this could be a very exciting time when 3D-printing moves out of the 'Rapid Application Prototyping' stage and becomes a realistic proposition to manufacture durable, high-quality items. [1] http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175562-major-patent-expiration-could-spark-a-second-3d-printing-revolution http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175562-major-patent-expir...
bradyd 13y ago
The article mentions that they use them for aerospace components, including landing gear. I wonder what the strength of these parts are compared to traditional manufacturing techniques. Can these parts be used for actual structural elements?
- retroafroman 13y ago
  For something critical like landing gear, or say car suspension components, I would highly doubt the use of 3D printed parts, at least in the near term with current production methods. Right now, most parts like this will be forged rather than cast, because there is a higher likelyhood of defects and generally lower strength in cast parts.
- bradleysmith 13y ago
  They can, but the expense of using this as a mfg process is generally prohibitive. I've read there are some advanced aerospace parts such as turbine blades w/ complex hollows or internal parts that require very advanced castings that it actually makes sense to use SLS as a build method. A good example of part-strength is the 1911 Solid Concepts in Austin printed late last year[0]. They used a EOSINT M 270, a pretty advanced and expensive SLS printer. [1] For reference, that 1911 ran about $600k in build cost. yeesh. [0] - http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/robert-farago/gun-review-solid-concepts-1911-dmls-direct-metal-laser-sintering/ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/robert-farago/gun-r... [1] - http://gpiprototype.com/services/eosintm270.html http://gpiprototype.com/services/eosintm270.html
- bsder 13y ago
  Even if you could handle the end product strength (and they can ... sort of), there are a lot more problems dealing with metal than plastic. First, metal is a LOT heavier to throw around than plastic. So, your control systems have to be dramatically bigger. Second, the melting points of metals are way higher than plastic, so the energy required to be right at a critical point of flow/melt is a lot bigger. Not to mention the percentage difference between melted and not melted is a lot smaller. Third, a lot of the metal techniques are about melting metal in place. That means that the part is buried in a block of powdered metal. That block of powdered metal is a significant fraction of the weight and cost of a plain old hunk of whatever the metal is. Try imagining fabricating even a small gold part out of a powdered block of 6"x6"x6" of gold--now think about how many metals are WAY more expensive than that. Finally, powdered metal is explosive. Most machines working with powdered metal require nitrogen atmosphere pump down and if there is a leak ... KABOOM.
saidajigumi 13y ago
For those of us who've been exploring current 3D printing tech, presumably including the audience for this site, that isn't really news as such. Also, the article does specifically mention laser sintering, another clue if you're familiar with the current major printing technologies. A quick look through the materials catalog at Shapeways[1] will give an idea of some of the available technologies and things that are possible, and that still doesn't touch on what's going on with the more industrial-scale technologies as referenced in the article. [1] http://www.shapeways.com/materials?li=nav http://www.shapeways.com/materials?li=nav
blah32497 13y ago
Why would you want to 3D print a car part when you can just make one with a CNC machine? CNC machines are cheaper, more precise, and are already established. The advantage of 3D printing comes with making very complex shapes. As far as I know, most parts in a car are pretty straightforward (gears, shafts, pistons etc.). Am I off-base?
- bsder 13y ago
  Because nobody uses CNC machines like that. The problem with metal fabrication is that a good CNC machine is at least $50,000 and more normally $250,000 or so. Combine the fact that the shop owner wants that machine running 24/7 to make bank, the fact that an error in the steel can cost you $20,000 in raw materials, and the fact that a single programming bug can damage the machine and you have a recipe for very constrained, conservative usage. Contrast this to 3D printers: "Huh. That sucked. I'll print it again." Material lost: Under $1000. Machine damage: Nil. So, you'll print all manner of crap until you get it right.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  swarf

by foldor 13y ago

What's interesting, but kind of glossed over in the article, is it's not just your typical plastic 3D printer. This thing prints metal objects, which could conceivably be used for car parts.

alexhawdon 13y ago

Apparently there's a key patent that's just expired[1] that some claim will have a big impact on the market. I'm not in a position to comment but, if true, this could be a very exciting time when 3D-printing moves out of the 'Rapid Application Prototyping' stage and becomes a realistic proposition to manufacture durable, high-quality items. [1] http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175562-major-patent-expiration-could-spark-a-second-3d-printing-revolution http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175562-major-patent-expir...

bradyd 13y ago

The article mentions that they use them for aerospace components, including landing gear. I wonder what the strength of these parts are compared to traditional manufacturing techniques. Can these parts be used for actual structural elements?

retroafroman 13y ago
For something critical like landing gear, or say car suspension components, I would highly doubt the use of 3D printed parts, at least in the near term with current production methods. Right now, most parts like this will be forged rather than cast, because there is a higher likelyhood of defects and generally lower strength in cast parts.
bradleysmith 13y ago
They can, but the expense of using this as a mfg process is generally prohibitive. I've read there are some advanced aerospace parts such as turbine blades w/ complex hollows or internal parts that require very advanced castings that it actually makes sense to use SLS as a build method. A good example of part-strength is the 1911 Solid Concepts in Austin printed late last year[0]. They used a EOSINT M 270, a pretty advanced and expensive SLS printer. [1] For reference, that 1911 ran about $600k in build cost. yeesh. [0] - http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/robert-farago/gun-review-solid-concepts-1911-dmls-direct-metal-laser-sintering/ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/robert-farago/gun-r... [1] - http://gpiprototype.com/services/eosintm270.html http://gpiprototype.com/services/eosintm270.html
bsder 13y ago
Even if you could handle the end product strength (and they can ... sort of), there are a lot more problems dealing with metal than plastic. First, metal is a LOT heavier to throw around than plastic. So, your control systems have to be dramatically bigger. Second, the melting points of metals are way higher than plastic, so the energy required to be right at a critical point of flow/melt is a lot bigger. Not to mention the percentage difference between melted and not melted is a lot smaller. Third, a lot of the metal techniques are about melting metal in place. That means that the part is buried in a block of powdered metal. That block of powdered metal is a significant fraction of the weight and cost of a plain old hunk of whatever the metal is. Try imagining fabricating even a small gold part out of a powdered block of 6"x6"x6" of gold--now think about how many metals are WAY more expensive than that. Finally, powdered metal is explosive. Most machines working with powdered metal require nitrogen atmosphere pump down and if there is a leak ... KABOOM.

saidajigumi 13y ago

For those of us who've been exploring current 3D printing tech, presumably including the audience for this site, that isn't really news as such. Also, the article does specifically mention laser sintering, another clue if you're familiar with the current major printing technologies. A quick look through the materials catalog at Shapeways[1] will give an idea of some of the available technologies and things that are possible, and that still doesn't touch on what's going on with the more industrial-scale technologies as referenced in the article. [1] http://www.shapeways.com/materials?li=nav http://www.shapeways.com/materials?li=nav

blah32497 13y ago

Why would you want to 3D print a car part when you can just make one with a CNC machine? CNC machines are cheaper, more precise, and are already established. The advantage of 3D printing comes with making very complex shapes. As far as I know, most parts in a car are pretty straightforward (gears, shafts, pistons etc.). Am I off-base?

bsder 13y ago
Because nobody uses CNC machines like that. The problem with metal fabrication is that a good CNC machine is at least $50,000 and more normally $250,000 or so. Combine the fact that the shop owner wants that machine running 24/7 to make bank, the fact that an error in the steel can cost you $20,000 in raw materials, and the fact that a single programming bug can damage the machine and you have a recipe for very constrained, conservative usage. Contrast this to 3D printers: "Huh. That sucked. I'll print it again." Material lost: Under $1000. Machine damage: Nil. So, you'll print all manner of crap until you get it right.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
swarf