Erik_MagOne of the more interesting uses of 3D printing is making molds for sand casting metal. These are not cheap and I would imagine that a set of patterns would be cheaper once production exceeds maybe 5 units.
I can't help but think of lost wax casting as an application for 3D printing. A local plant (since closed) did "lost foam" casting of aluminum engines at one time. I don't know just how that process works, but perhaps it's similar to lost wax.
Either way, I can see 3D printing as a potential part of the process.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Erik_MagWouldn't gunite/shotcrete be properly considered as a crude form of 3D printing?
Not usually, because it's only a medium placed over forms or reinforcement. Its use as a true 3D print medium is limited by permissible harshness for pumping and placing, cure time, and slump characteristics, although one of the advanced reinforcing systems (e.g. acicular stainless) can make concrete fully structural when placed as if 'printed'.
Likewise the concrete and finish placed over AVG forms (which can be computer generated and plant-fabricated) only serves as the last step in the "3D-generated" architecture, and by analogy the use of concrete with existing 3D architectural printers (which print the reinforcement structure of a building, with more conventional structural techniques of concrete placement (including guns), shuttering, and formwork used to finish) is not really 'printed' in the sense the term is usually meant.
Concrete only approximates a gleepsite, so some of the additive 3D printing approaches that involve rapid heating to bond 'placed' elements may be more 'true' to the idea of mechanical printing (assuming automatic pick and place of the components) than full and lethally expensive use of something like thermoplastics with reinforcement rods/wires dispensed through printhead structure.
The '60s technique involving blown ABS was new and interesting to me. I was familiar with the use of inflated elements as forms, and of course Styrofoam is a major enabling technology for AVG-like systems, but the idea of using it as a free-form core (or removable form) is interesting. (I suspect the blowing agent used in that project would never pass EPA muster today, but it's interesting to consider what might; the technique could easily be used with today's large-scale gantry and arm 3D printer positioners). Note that it implies internal structural reinforcement in the concrete, more than the usual tension additives in shotcrete.
Wouldn't gunite/shotcrete be properly considered as a crude form of 3D printing?
One of the more interesting uses of 3D printing is making molds for sand casting metal. These are not cheap and I would imagine that a set of patterns would be cheaper once production exceeds maybe 5 units.
Semper VaporoBut I digress... my point is that 3-D printing "on-site" is old hat!
Totally agree!
The 3D building print I saw used concrete rather than foam. Clearly the concrete was stiff enough when deposited to hold itself up, and then the next layer at some point soon thereafter.
The 150 foot I beam was pretty much exactly where I was going with that.
It could be interesting.
Even if you can print "on-site" you need to supply the raw materials to use to make the print. However, it might be easier to haul a big vat of "stuff", than a 150-ft long I-beam to the site.
I remember a DisneyLand TV show back in the 50's or 60's; one of their episodes from "TomorrowLand". There was an animation of a bridge being built; using some sort of concrete machine that was supported by the road surface it was leaving behind it. There was no under-supporting structure... just a long rise in the road surface heading out over water. They didn't call it "3-D printing" but that is essentially what it was. It would take some mighty strong concrete to perform such, but they had the idea a long, long time ago.
I also remember a Doctor's office complex built with a 3-D printer back in the 60's. The process was a long hollow tube that pivoted in the center of the building and the liquids to produce Styrofoam was injected in the base, to travel the length of the tube to be deposited on the ground at the other end. The arm swung in a circle, leaving a 4-inch thick, 4-inch tall strip of hardening foam. Once it had completed the circle it then deposited the next layer on top of the first, building a wall, layer by layer; since the arm didn't raise in the center, the wall curved inward as the wall was built, producing a dome. Once that was complete, they cut door and window openings and framed them for strength and then poured concrete on top of everything. Thus, the bulk of the concrete “forms” were 3-D printed on-site.
Then there were the "odor containment" domes that were put over the sewage treatment plant settling pools in the city where I live. Worked well. (The city has the motto of 'the City of Five Seasons'... but many wags changed it to 'the City of Five Smells' due to the various food-processing plants and the close proximity of the sewage plant to the downtown.)
Unfortunately, when the sewage treatment plant was decommissioned and was the buildings were raised, an accident set fire to the foam and the resulting smoke plume created the first "Shelter in place" order I remember ever happening. It is known as "Toxic Tuesday" around here.
But I digress... my point is that 3-D printing "on-site" is old hat!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
EnzoampsLet us say they can 3D print construction I-beams. DO you think they will set up a giant industrial printing factory on the construction site?
Actually, I can see that happening, if such beams, etc, could be satisfactorally 3D printed. Odds are the 3D printer would be smaller than the pieces it creates. This would mean that humoungusly long beams wouldn't have to be transported over the road (with the problems that brings). Custom pieces would be easy - especially if something new was needed.
Depending on how the process worked, it might even be even be possible to build beams in place, perfect for highway bridges.
Of course, these items are custom built in the first place (a fellow I know works at one such fabricator). Something like mass-produced auto parts wouldn't be a candidate unless the 3D process was faster than current production techniques.
The value then goes back to prototyping.
Let us say they can 3D print construction I-beams. DO you think they will set up a giant industrial printing factory on the construction site? If GM cars start to use 3D printed interior trim parts instead of the blow molded parts they use now, do you think they will add 3D wings to their factories? It doesn't matter how they make these things, they still need to be transported.
Economy of scale will always rear its ugly head. Automotive parts plants usually serve multiple car factories. Those factories would not decide to each one install big 3D departments.
Can only speak for our household, but these last few weeks have changed the way we view our consumption. How we spend our time, how we shop, what we'll buy going forward.
SD60MAC9500The same crud you espoused around here on trains.com about RR's being obsolete and useless.
I'm only sharing a common viewpoint that people have around here. When I say that railroads may be more effective in that role, I mean in the current technological paradigm, but this doesn't take into account the changes occuring in trucking.
SD60MAC9500 So what's your point? Most if not all technologies are disruptive and require capital to operate from investors.
My point is that we live in a world of vulture capital, not venture capital. At this point, Silicon Valley is so full of BS that they are willing to claim that their technologies are capable of things that they really aren't. In this modern day, everything is labelled as disruptive when not many things are. Buzzwords make the world go 'round.
SD60MAC9500In a previous comment on Bill's blog, you said energy doesn't matter?
Energy is a lot smaller of a problem in transport when trucking companies are willing to make smaller profits to undercut their modal competition. In manufacturing, energy consumption is a much larger factor in cost.
SD60MAC9500All the former disruptive technologies I listed were energy intensive in the beginning, and grew more energy efficient as time went on...
Ya, they become more efficient, but fundamental characteristics of those technologies haven't changed over time. For example, aircraft have become more energy efficient over time, but not enough that their use case has been substantially widened. They have a niche, much like 3D printing has a niche, but they didn't replace all modes of transport, much like 3D printing won't replace all traditional manufacturing. 3D printing has limitations and no matter how good it gets, those limitations will still be there.
Edit: Just wanted to say, if trucking moves most manufactured and finished goods, what makes you think that it will effect railroads more than anything else?
BaltACDAn with a few tweaks in handling biological matter 3D printing will be able to pop out fully formed animals on demand!
You really think they'd settle for animals?
We need an extra crew! Print one up!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Semper VaporoGit big enuf 3-D printer and you can not only print the trucks, but the whole car, including the contents! Ford Motor Company could be just one great big printer, pumping out cars already loaded on the auto-carrier car. Only need a couple of employees to keep the printer's bins full of raw material.
An with a few tweaks in handling biological matter 3D printing will be able to pop out fully formed animals on demand!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Semper Vaporo Git big enuf 3-D printer and you can not only print the trucks, but the whole car, including the contents! Ford Motor Company could be just one great big printer, pumping out cars already loaded on the auto-carrier car. Only need a couple of employees to keep the printer's bins full of raw material.
Git big enuf 3-D printer and you can not only print the trucks, but the whole car, including the contents! Ford Motor Company could be just one great big printer, pumping out cars already loaded on the auto-carrier car. Only need a couple of employees to keep the printer's bins full of raw material.
Johnny
ttrraaffiicc Oh my, I've heard this before and it's all a bunch of crud. All I can say is that when someone says that something is "disruptive", 9 times out of 10 they are trying to take your money. 3D printing has a bunch of flaws that will prevent it from ever replacing traditional manufacturing. It augments and improves traditioning manufacturing. 3D printing consumes more energy, is slower and more expensive in many cases. It is more useful when you aren't producing a lot of something as it works against the principles of economies of scale but reduces the costs associated with making items in smaller batches. 3D printers were set to change the world 6 years ago, and whenever you went to a conference, that was all you ever heard of and it was annoying. Those predictions never came true. Are they useful? Yes, but they aren't the panacea of manufacturing that everyone said they would be and that isn't something that will fundamentally change. It is inherent to the technique. Either way, railroads would be well suited to this change since they would be delivering the raw materials more effectively than trucks in many cases.
Oh my, I've heard this before and it's all a bunch of crud. All I can say is that when someone says that something is "disruptive", 9 times out of 10 they are trying to take your money. 3D printing has a bunch of flaws that will prevent it from ever replacing traditional manufacturing. It augments and improves traditioning manufacturing. 3D printing consumes more energy, is slower and more expensive in many cases. It is more useful when you aren't producing a lot of something as it works against the principles of economies of scale but reduces the costs associated with making items in smaller batches. 3D printers were set to change the world 6 years ago, and whenever you went to a conference, that was all you ever heard of and it was annoying. Those predictions never came true. Are they useful? Yes, but they aren't the panacea of manufacturing that everyone said they would be and that isn't something that will fundamentally change. It is inherent to the technique. Either way, railroads would be well suited to this change since they would be delivering the raw materials more effectively than trucks in many cases.
Oh the irony... The same crud you espoused around here on trains.com about RR's being obsolete and useless.. So you believe in this role trains are more effective, yet in the face of it you currently say the rails don't matter? Do you bite your cheek then slap your tongue? Railroads were disruptive technology. Aviation was disruptive technology. The automobile was disruptive technology... So what's your point? Most if not all technologies are disruptive and require capital to operate from investors. In a previous comment on Bill's blog, you said energy doesn't matter? So by that logic ... All the former disruptive technologies I listed were energy intensive in the beginning, and grew more energy efficient as time went on... Now. RR's have current and future issues to deal with and changes in manufacturing will have an effect.. Yet I don't have to say RR's are useless because they'll be around in some shape or form that we don't recognize today..So even if that role in freight gets somewhat diminished due to future events. They will still be an important form of transport.
Murphy Siding3-D printing will soon replace railroads. 3-D printing is cool and a buzz word. Railroads are a mature, 200 year old, + or - technology that will somehow become instantly obsolete.
We're going to 3D print trucks for each trip. When they get to their destication, we will throw them out in a dumpster (also 3D printed) and start again.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
SD60MAC9500In due time the deficits in printing won't last as long as many think.
"Sooner than you think." If I had a nickel for every time I heard this exact phrase...
Ulrich 3D printing will remain the perview of certain plastics manufacturing. We're still a long way from 3D printing a 60 ft steel I beam.. or a steel coil.. or pretty much anything else that isn't made from plastic.
3D printing will remain the perview of certain plastics manufacturing. We're still a long way from 3D printing a 60 ft steel I beam.. or a steel coil.. or pretty much anything else that isn't made from plastic.
3D at present is limited in scope, but it will not be as long as many think before were making beams and other structures.. These beams don't have to be made of steel either. If anything most ferrous metals will more than likely be phased out in the future as; mining, smelting, and processing of non metallic ores decrease in price..Let alone improvements in carbon fibers and ceramics..
Erik_Mag FWIW, 3D prining makes sense for very low volume production and intricate geometries (e.g. liquid fuel rocket nozzles). Above a certain threshold it makes more sense to use standard production techniques. Since rail works best with mass movement, I don't think 3D printing is going to have an impact on rail traffic for at least a couple of decades.
FWIW, 3D prining makes sense for very low volume production and intricate geometries (e.g. liquid fuel rocket nozzles). Above a certain threshold it makes more sense to use standard production techniques. Since rail works best with mass movement, I don't think 3D printing is going to have an impact on rail traffic for at least a couple of decades.
At the moment it only makes sense yes. In due time the deficits in printing won't last as long as many think. This is something that the RR industry should be paying attention to. UPS invested in a small outfit called Fast Radius. This investment could be easily dismissed as childs play. Yet UPS took a disciplined approach to this investment. The main issue will be disruption to the current supply chain.. The ability to print items at will without inventory will become a big deal. Traditional manufacturing will continue to exist but in a much smaller footprint than today..
Maybe the RRs would be delivering the plastic raw material.
Given that it takes my an hour to print a single "ear saver," production will never be a strong suit of 3D printing.
As was noted, though, it's the cat's meow for prototyping. If you can design it in a CAD program, you can print it.
There are processes for printing metal, and for printing with concrete for that matter.
When 3D printing can turn out hundereds or thousands of parts per hour - then 3D can conquer manufacturing. Until then it is a adjunct - good for prototyping or making a one off special part without the need to develop special tooling to accomplish the objective. Great for proof of concept engineering solutions.
The ongoing improivements in 3D printing will allow for a revolution in manufacturing. Quicker item availability will play a big factor in future modal choices. This impact it appears will be most felt in the Railroad industry, as 3D printing significantly cuts; cost, time, warehousing and distance. How do the RR's plan to adopt to this emerging trend? I see it being a difficult road ahead with the RR's strictly moving what bulk traffic is left in the future..Watch the doc below if you're not familiar with 3D printing..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.