Slashdot Mirror
GE Is 3D Printing a Working Jet Engine
lurking_giant writes: GE Aviation's Additive Development Center near Cincinnati has produced a number of firsts but they are now demonstrating a working 3D-printed jet engine, (OK, it's sized for an RC model). The engine turns at 33,000 RPM and is made from all 3D metal printed parts. They used the same EOS M270 3D printer that they use to produce the first and only FAA flight approved hardware, a T25 Pres and temp sensor for use in GE90 jumbo jet engines.
> Enough 3D printing shit. It's never going to catch on.
It already has caught on. It's improving with each passing day and it's capable of much more than we've seen or you give it credit for. It's pretty amazing IMHO.
So, by all means, keep on hating but just STFU about it already. Let the rest of us enjoy the revolution.
It was fucking beautiful. 3D printing is the saviour of the world. Nothing is more interesting or newsworthy. If it has not been 3D printed it does not exist and no one cares about it.
So go forth and 3D print your turds everywhere!
Wake up, idiot! The fucking thing "is made from all 3D metal printed parts"
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Really....
Metal 3D printers have been out for sometime.
Additionally, this used to be common, but was called prototyping using a sintering machine. The "new" bits are a) calling it "3-D Printing" and b) the wealth of software now available for ALL 3-D printing devices due to the boom in hobbyist plastics-based additive manufacturing. Having more people interested in creating additive objects means that there have also been design improvements and economies of scale across all types of additive (and subtractive) manufacturing methods.
I'm just waiting for the day when subtractive cellulose modelling (aka carving/engraving) becomes known as 3-D Printing.
will a 3d printed (presumably plastic) jet engine last?
Wake me when they have 3d printers that print in Titanium
I'm guessing they will have 3d printers that work in soft metals like gold and silver before too long
of course the cartidges will cost both arms and both legs...
RTFA "The engine turns at 33,000 RPM and is made from all 3D metal printed parts."
DMLS printing uses metal powders sintered by high power lasers. The metals not only include Titanium and Inconel (rocket engine superalloy), but can include gradient transitions between them in the same piece. While some surface work may be required for some applications, the crystalline structure of the metal itself is of finer quality that that produced by machining + annealing used for high grade parts the old fashioned way.
These are not your homebrew melted plastic filament printers, and they are changing manufacturing.
>will a 3d printed (presumably plastic) jet engine last? .. is made from all 3D _metal_ printed parts."
Good thing you read the... nevermind. "The engine
>Wake me when they have 3d printers that print in Titanium
Printing of titanium alloys is possible already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing
>I'm guessing they will have 3d printers that work in soft metals like gold and silver before too long ... of course they do. There is reason 3D printers aren't called Philosopher's Stones.
of course the cartidges will cost both arms and both legs...
This really shows what the future of 3D printing will look like. Couple that with open source or low-cost model design and assembly... it's really something impressive.
Sintering is also not a new technology by any means either. The use of the laser in the process is relatively new at around 20 years, but additive methods of working with specific materials, then machining the assembly to final size is quite old. It's an injustice to the process to call it 3d printing.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Holy smokes. I can only imagine how you react when you catch your wife cheating on someone.
Please select one or more objects to 3D print:
[_] Airplane
[_] Howitzer
[_] Missile
[_] Nuke
Table-ized A.I.
It certainly is not new in the turbine field. Metal sintering with lasers is used to repair and re-edge turbine blades in compressors and has been for many years.
3D printing will never produce parts as good as the ones machined from forgings. Grain flow and metal structure is crucial in producing aircraft engine parts, 3d printing them is just a novelty, might make a nice headline and a working engine with a short lifespan but will never make it into commercial aircraft.
Some parts are casted, beats 3D printing, their structure is a single metal crystal.
I do this for a living and as much as I would like to program a 3D printer instead of milling and turning machines I know it will never catch up.
Further machining will be required for 3D printed parts anyway, they end up in big assemblies and tolerances are tight.
It's a Sensor HOUSING, not the sensor that goes in it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Prototyping is great, but the real cost benefit of 3D printing will be in the generation of tooling for production runs. Right now making tooling is a huge percentage of the cost and time to produce parts
You keep hearing about "3D printed" this and that, but does it just come off the printer's bed ready to go? Does it need to be trued, balanced, machined, bored, and heat-treated in a hydrogen atmosphere somehow?
Because I get the feeling that a lot of the fantastical claims for 3D printing are a little bit overblown IMO.
I think there's a market for maybe five 3D printers.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Didn't we have this dance a couple of months ago?
http://build.slashdot.org/story/15/02/27/157249/researchers-create-worlds-first-3d-printed-jet-engines
You don't even need to RTFA to learn the printed parts are metal - it's stated right in the summary.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Someone made a working 1911 acp with this tech years ago.
Yeah I was going to say...
Saw a program a while back, about RR jet engines. Some of those fan blades are not only so finely machined and built that they are hand-made, but also get internally imaged for problems or stress.
What such tricks with 3d printing do accomplish is they let engineers build a mock-up or scale model from their designs much more efficiently than before.
...
Could a working stepper motor be built using a 3d printer?
You guys know that normal RC jet engine go all the way to 100-200K rpm right? 33000 isn't even idle.
Other fun facts:
Stress goes up with rpm squared
Most of the thrust is generated at 80-100% rpm
This thing is teh sux
if you want to wind it yourself. and dont care about minimizing volume or maximizing torque or efficiency...i suppose
That sounds impressive until you remember that the 1911 acp is named such because it was first produced over a century ago, in 1911. I mean, making it using a new technology is fine and dandy, but it's not as if the object itself is particularly complicated, built to a fine tolerance, or anything like that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I do this for a living and as much as I would like to program a 3D printer instead of milling and turning machines I know it will never catch up.
Then you should at least be aware of the dozens of other ways parts get made, and how not one of them is "beats" the other in general, because they are used for different priorities. A lot of the time, the priority is being cheaper, in which case milling loses both due to time and materials, depending on the part. There are times it is cheaper to cast, or to cut out with plasma or laser cutting depending on scale, or to EDM, etc. Our shop have turned away pieces that were better suited for 3D printing in some cases, because of they were designed for high strength to weight ratio and involved rather complicated honeycomb and internal structures that were just not worth the time and metal to machine away (likely we were being asked for a quote because they just needed multiple quotes for their purchasing process).
making it using a new technology is fine and dandy, but it's not as if the object itself is particularly complicated, built to a fine tolerance, or anything like that.
You can still buy sloppy 1911s, but most of them are CNC milled now and they are actually pretty tight. Someone has to break them in, in fact; for Kimbers and cheaper ones it's you, for more expensive ones it's usually someone else.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
GP said "wake me up when they can print in titanium" and parent said "wake up, idiot!"
The "idiot" part was gratuitous but otherwise parent was just following through on GP's request. :-)
you could build it by hand.
you can build the metal parts with a metal 3d printer.. more expensive than traditional methods for no benefit though. the magnets? i suppose you could, but for what benefit? and the coils? well you most certainly would like to use a coiling machine to coil them up.. but printing the copper in place as the coils.. would be too expensive and too stupid.
anyways, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... as you can see, not _everything_ about it is 3d printed.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Somebody who gets it! *high five*
No, that is called 3D-Carving.
Where exactly are you getting your knowledge base from? The parts that GE is going to be using from 3d printing are actually much stronger and more efficient than those made by any other means. Complex shapes and one of a kind designs, that would only be possible with 3d printing, are making their way into jet engines and large turbines as we type these responses. I think you need to do a little more research- or maybe a little less. Either way, I think you response is completely wrong. We are not talking about plastic toys here. Some of these parts cost in the multi thousand dollar range and higher And are strapped to multimillion dollar machines. Toys? Not even close.
that is the question. I mean, at least the mechanical parts, of course it cannot print electronics.
things you need to buy(depending on model, some don't user linears so you can skip them, but need buy some other stuff more):
*control board(30-70 bucks). ,5-20 bucks /piece).
*power supply(old pc supply will do, 12V, 10-40 bucks)
*some sort of straight rod or tubing(tubing is ok for using with printed bushings).
*some electric wiring.
*hot end(20-100 bucks). comes with a heating element and a temp sensitive resistor.
*some stepper motors(4
*some sort of build plate(piece of glass, 20cm*20cm typically, 2 bucks)
if you were shopping carefully, I'm fairly sure you could do a funbot or smartrap build for 80-100 bucks + printed parts. you can print a rack and pinion so you don't need the belts, or use fishing line instead.
why are repraps that add a 200 bucks worth of linear guides and belts and a little cut plywood, metal or polycarbonate then going sometimes 800$+? don't really know. lulzbot is a particular example of a vendor that has a seemingly astronomical markup whilst not really adding anything expensive to the product.
you can get pretty decent kits for 300-400 bucks now that will perform just as well as a lulzbot nearing 2000 bucks(and way better than current makerbots).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Can it?
DMLS printing is not going to produce single crystal turbine blades, and is therefore not going to compete any time soon in that space. You might be able to print all the parts of a jet engine, but the result is not going to match the performance of one assembled from more conventional manufacturing processes. Even a 1% drop in efficiency of a jet engine is basically unacceptable in the airline industry these days.
You urgently need to learn to read, especially to understand what you read.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
about this technology, and he mentioned that this process allows combustor shapes not possible through traditional manufacturing methods. This means new opportunities for jet engine performance and emissions.
This is the same technology used by SpaceX on their engines.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I remember it called stereolithography, but that was mainly a type of 3D printing that used a laser and either a photosensitive liquid or powder which fused together, combined with a tray that slowly moved.
These days, I'd just go with a DMLS setup, since if I use a decent Iconel alloy, the finishing/grinding/polishing needed iis minimal.
A local place (Solid Concepts) made a 1911 out of DMLS sintered Iconel. All parts including the barrel, sear, trigger mechanism... everything but the grips. It didn't blow up or have any issues after 1000 rounds ran through it.
Mitsubishi has a DMLS machine that does both the sintering and machining (both additive and subtractive), which not just would allow a 1911 to be made, but the parts coming out just needing final assembly.
Of course, there are other uses than firearms.
But most modern gas turbines use single crystal turbine blades to reduce creep. I doubt that DMLS material will work as well.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Different AC here than the poster you replied to...
I'm sorry but you are WRONG. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for additive 3D printing to be stronger than forged steel. I agree that you can make complex shapes not possible by any other means, but the grain orientation is extremely important in steel lattice structure (whether forged or cast). Forging also creates a denser metallic part that eliminates or reduces voids that can cause weaknesses or failures... Cast or forged steel does not have inherent discontinuities. Please realize that additive printing is the same as creating hundreds or thousands of laminations that can be considered to be hundreds or thousands of SHEAR PLANES... I would NEVER trust a part with inherent shear planes to perform without failure in a high stress environment such as jet propulsion...
So I ask: Where does your unfounded trust from?
Given any two steel parts where one is 3D printed, and the other is forged, under the same test conditions (regardless what they are), the 3D printed part will fail first 100 times out of 100. That is 100%. EVERY TIME. 3D printed part cannot outperform forged part.
I specifically refer to steel because you do not forge aluminum. Although the same rationale could be used for comparing 3D additive printing of aluminum or steel to cast aluminum or cast steel. The discontinous grain boundaries will lead to failure.
3D printing is already among the primary means of prototyping.
> I'm sorry but you are WRONG. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for additive 3D printing to be stronger than forged steel.
Read it and weep:
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/02/07/german-scientists-3d-print-lightweight-material-stronger-steel/
3D printed jet-engine parts are so old they show them being made on TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxO-STrOW6o#t=8m30
"Wake me when they have 3d printers that print in Titanium"
http://build.slashdot.org/stor...
That's an interesting link, but you fail to provide a valid argument to address my point...
Those 3D printed materials are only stronger than steel in COMPRESSIVE strength... Concrete has amazing compressive strength too, but you don't see much concrete used to build an airplane or turbine engine do you?
Also the printed materials are ceramic... While they are lightweight, the compressive strength of a material has very little value when it is shear strength or lateral strength that is the crucial aspect.
I'm sorry, I must respectfully disagree with your view.
Okay, but you weren't specific as to what you meant by "strength."
So how about 3D printing with carbon fiber ?
The whole point of this exercise is that the properties of a material change with how you structure it, and 3D printing gives you access to lots of structure options.
More materials are becoming possible every day, so to make a flat statement that "There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for additive 3D printing to be stronger than forged steel" is foolish, as you will be proved wrong sooner or later, no matter what isolated property of steel you choose to compare against.