Slashdot Mirror
NASA's JPL Develops Multi-Metal 3D Printing Process
yyzmcleod (1534129) writes The technology to 3D print a single part from multiple materials has been around for years, but only for polymer-based additive manufacturing processes. For metals, jobs are typically confined to a single powdered base metal or alloy per object. However, researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory say they have developed a 3D printing technique that allows for print jobs to transition from one metal to another in a single object. From the article: In JPL’s technique, the build material’s composition is gradually transitioned as the print progresses. For example, the powdered build material might contain 97 percent titanium alloy and 3 percent stainless steel at the beginning of the transition. Then, in 1 percent increments between layers, the gradient progresses to 97 percent stainless steel and 3 percent Ti alloy by some defined point in the overall 3D printing process.
Yep, I'd like to see that. Never-mind why, I just want to see that.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I'm not an industrial/mechanical/aerospace engineer.
Are there any existing manufacturing processes that allow the creation of a metal gradient of this sort? Is this unique to 3d printed constructions?
I've got enough of an understanding of statics to grasp how it might be useful to transition from sturdier heavier components to lighter more fragile materials, so I could see how if this was new, it'd be revolutionary.
And then in ten years it finds its way into your car. Into golf clubs and tennis rackets. Into medical implants.
It's not about being able to magically colonize space, it's about saving money and improving shuttle fuel economy. I forget what the cost per pound to send something into space is, but I remember it being in the range of thousands of dollars per pound in fuel. If you could use this to reduce the weight of a vessel by even a few kilograms, you would be saving tens of thousands per launch on fuel costs. Alternatively, that's a few kilograms that can be devoted to experiments rather than the weight of the shuttle.
The same thing goes for any other type of fuel-burning vehicle.
Pfft, in 10 year it very well could be a $300 printer in your garage. Technology moves fast and there is no telling where it will be in 10 years.
Actually, the ability to print in multiple metals on the same job has innumerable industrial applications, because it removes the major current limitation of 3D print tech. Medical device nutters, electronics assembly nutters and airframe nutters are going to really love this.
Right now, you basically can't build a machine that can build itself, because almost all machines need multiple metals AND needs parts that touch but are not bonded. A simple motor for example needs metals that are magnetic and non-magnetic and also needs something that can spin.
With this technology, a machine may actually be able to create a copy of itself that does not need any other parts added, nor will it need human assembly.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The Russian aerospace industry has been doing this for quite some time (the Soviets were incredibly advanced with their metallurgy, if not much else) but the process involved basically heat grafting progressively biased alloys onto each other, which proved almost impossible to automate and required a lot of manual intervention by incredibly skilled technicians along the manufacturing chain - it proved so difficult and expensive (even if it WAS revolutionary for the time), they only used the method on an incredibly small number of projects such as the MiG-25 jet interceptor and the early versions of the Soyuz rocket.
This will hardly revolutionize anything except for a few niche applications were you can save 100 grams from some arcane strut in a rocket.
The example in the article wasn't so much about weight savings, rather having a single part with two different expansion properties - in this case, mounting a mirror on a space telescope, where you have one end attached to steel and the other to glass. This lets them match the thermal expanion on each end, making the mount both simple (single part) and effective.
Many of those problems will not be resolved. The most important one, and one that will always be worse in the case of 3D printing compared to traditional mass manufacturing methods, is the extreme energy inefficiency. For example, when printing with plastic, a 3D printer uses 50-100 times more electricity than an injection molding machine making the same part, not to mention that it wastes a lot of material left in the print bed that's not recyclable as feed for the printer because its properties have been corrupted. Home and office use should also be discouraged because of the emittance of ultrafine particles. Want your place of living/work's air even more polluted? Source for these: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/3d...
There are other problems as well, including cultural ones. From the article:
3D printing might someday encourage a new kind of pollution: rapid garbage generation. Engineers being trained to respect their raw materials are taught "Think twice, cut once." When people get ahold of easy production tools, however, it’s easy to not heed that wise old adage.
Like we don't have enough of a throw-away culture as it is.
3D printing should only be used to manufacture objects which cannot be made by other methods.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
But we already have cars and golf clubs etc. They won't suddenly get better by orders of magnitude. It's not the same as going from the Model T to a car in the 1960s.
So a few niche uses then? My god, saving a few thousand per billion dollar launch? Has anyone warned the Andromedans? We're coming!
I'm betting 1000 satoshi that in 10 years we'll be in 2024.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I'm not sure. I suspect that this is going to largely be "an invention looking for an application" for a decade...just like the laser was.
The problem is we've never been able to create alloys as a tightly controlled gradient of multiple metals before. Now if it could print a sharp disjunction between the materials, and especially if it could also print an insulating layer, then the applications would be obvious, but this is a very different thing. Different metals, e.g., conduct both heat and electricity differently. What will the effects be is one can print a gradient that oscillates between two different metals? How well can alloy crystal properties be predicted?
I think this is something that has a LOT of potential, but what those potetials actually are may well take quite awhile to figure out.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A separate metal for each nozzle.
The layout of the metals will need to plan for internal corrosion. Whilst, both titanium and most stainless steels have a corrosion proof film (it is why these materials are so useful, particularly when used alone), the use of two different grades WILL set up an electrochemical potential between the parts and this will provide an opening for corrosion to occur.
While the stainless steel transition to Invar may be a good idea, the stainless steel to titanium transition mentioned (hypothetically one hopes) is a bad idea. The fusing of the stainless steel to titanium will generate brittle iron-titanium (Fe2Ti) intermetallic compound.
I publish information about 3d printing and I've just written an article on the NASA website ( http://www.priximprimante3d.co... ), I find the process interesting even similar to previously developed by Irepa Laser technique.