Maybe we're getting 3D printing and other processes muddled. I'm talking about processes which take the metal or alloy as a powder (no mixing, as in the powder is the material desired, no binders or anything) and directly melt it. And in this case, with certain processes, forged strengths (tensile, yield and fatigue) can be beaten.
Actually using a Boule crystal is the cream of the crop as far as shear strength and toughness which is why we use it for jet engine turbine disks and blades (I believe you'll find they are cast and cooled slowly enough to produce a single crystal). However for everyday applications where we aren't concerned about pushing the materials to the absolute limits forged billets + machine is good enough.
I've not had the chance to play with 3D metal printing yet... Where are you getting this info from? Because I'm sure we'd have switched to 3D printing metal at work if it was as strong as a forged or cast item.
Only if it was cost effective though? I have seen a 3D printer where it was basically a welding machine that could lay down very thin layers. The main issues on the program I saw where time and cost, they didn't mention material strength at all.
The cost of 3D printing would be a relatively minor issue (aerospace industry...) and the designs could be improved if we didn't have to use conventional manufacturing techniques.
I could understand that if your working on defense programs but for a commercial product the 3D printing process would still have to be commercially viable. Otherwise why are their no supersonic passenger jets sitting 800 people at a time flying around?
I've worked on the Typhoon, Harrier, Tornado, V22 Osprey, Herc's, Hawks and T45 so I think I've got the military side covered. The reason we aren't using 800 passenger supersonic jets is down to two things:- Regulations - Most governments do not like supersonic jets being in private hands and the noise caused by the sonic boom would create an issue. Fuel Cost - this is the real killer though. Planes designed to fly supersonic speeds are very inefficient at slow speeds (landing/take-off) and need a lot of fuel to accelerate passed the sound barrier. Once Concorde was a cruise it was in fact very efficient however getting there and back was extremely wasteful.
Yes but you are missing the point - We don't use 3D metal printing not because of the price but because of the strength. If AIrbus or Boeing were to increase the price of a plane by 10-15% for a 3-4% fuel reduction (and 3D print of the same strength as conventional metal would cause a big weight reduction...) they would still sell like hot cakes because the running costs is what has the biggest impact on an airline. To prove the point:- A typical aerospace grade steel http://www.smithmetal.com/downloads/s80_SMC.pdf DMLS steel http://gpiprototype.com/images/PDF/gp1.pdf The proof stress is what I typically look at - aerospace steel is 690MPa whereas DMLS steel 540/500 depending on the direction (not to mention the DMLS has a +/-50MPa tolerance and in aerospace you work to the worst case or 490/450MPa...) that difference would have a noticeable affect on the size and weight of the what we make.
http://www.shapeways.com/materials/ Upload sketchup model -> pay "reasonable" sum -> wait Didn't try it myself, but I read a very positive article in a german magazine that compared a few similar companies.
my uni has one. its really awesome. and they do things really cheep. If you want something printed look up if any local uni's near you have one witch can be used commercially because it is often a lot cheaper that getting something professionally printed. i know thats not really relevant
i dont think things built by 3d printers will be structurally strong enough for heavy data, but we'll have to see, 3d priting is still very much in it's infancy. I watched that programme they always said that you can print chocolate and other sweets. That sounds very interesting to me.
