I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Phil Kangas wrote:

I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I think they are overstating the strength of material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a finished wrench

-jim

jim wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I think they are overstating the strength of material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a finished wrench

-jim


That was still mighty impressive.

And a "printed" mold for casting metals is pretty cool too...



--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

On 7/6/2011 9:15 PM, jim wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:

I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I think they are overstating the strength of material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a finished wrench

-jim

They do play to the audience a bit.

The videos imply that a simple visual scanner can identify moving parts,
such as the separate parts of a wrench. I'd have to think there was some
CAD editing done in there, off-camera.

Also they like to overstate the use of print-on-demand as a method of
mass-production manufacturing. This mthod is fantastic for prototyping
and mold-making but it's a very slow and wasteful method for actual
production of identical parts. ...And will be (slow and wasteful) for
quite a while.

Eventually it will happen, but my guess is it will be quite some number
of years before you see 3D-printed items sitting on any store shelves in
your town.

----------

Also,,, the idea is not quite new.
At least as far back as the 1960's they tried to use MIG welders to do
pretty much the same thing--"draw" 3-D shapes directly with metal. It
worked but the results were not ideal. The only 'common' use that came
out of it was the hardfacing machines used to resurface tracked
bulldozer and crane wheels, AFAIK.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:15:23 -0500, jim
wrote:

Phil Kangas wrote:

I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I think they are overstating the strength of material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a finished wrench

-jim


and its gonna be pain in the ass keeping the media in that open
topped box under zero g

Be a hell of a mess, eh wot?


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Jul 6, 10:48*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:15:23 -0500, jim
wrote:









Phil Kangas wrote:

I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I think they are overstating the strength of material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a finished wrench

-jim

and its gonna be *pain in the ass keeping the media in that open
topped box under zero g

Be a hell of a mess, eh wot?

*Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
*wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
*something damned nasty to all three of them.

I'm thinking mild suction. The Cad pattern wasn't taken from the
wrench shown.
Karl

DougC wrote:

On 7/6/2011 9:15 PM, jim wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:

I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I think they are overstating the strength of material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a finished wrench

-jim

They do play to the audience a bit.

The videos imply that a simple visual scanner can identify moving parts,
such as the separate parts of a wrench. I'd have to think there was some
CAD editing done in there, off-camera.

Yes definitely, there was some CAD editing to make that work. There are
parts of the wrench that are hidden. the scanner doesn't have xray
vision.





Also they like to overstate the use of print-on-demand as a method of
mass-production manufacturing. This mthod is fantastic for prototyping
and mold-making but it's a very slow and wasteful method for actual
production of identical parts. ...And will be (slow and wasteful) for
quite a while.

Eventually it will happen, but my guess is it will be quite some number
of years before you see 3D-printed items sitting on any store shelves in
your town.

----------

Also,,, the idea is not quite new.
At least as far back as the 1960's they tried to use MIG welders to do
pretty much the same thing--"draw" 3-D shapes directly with metal. It
worked but the results were not ideal. The only 'common' use that came
out of it was the hardfacing machines used to resurface tracked
bulldozer and crane wheels, AFAIK.

Zcorp has been around for about as long as the ink-jet printer has been
around. Their original Zcorp printer was just a modified 2d ink-jet
printer. Instead of printing ink it prints a binder (glue). This is why
the Zcorp system can print using different colors.
The way the Zcorp system works is the machine lays down a thin layer
of powder and then the printer head passes over and deposits the binder
wherever the solid material is supposed to be. Then another thin layer
of powder and another pass with the print head. It takes about 200
layers per vertical height so the resolution is about .005".

-jim

....and some editorialist exaggeration and convenient detail dropping to
enlighten the story.

--------------



"jim" wrote in message ...
Yes definitely, there was some CAD editing to make that work. There are
parts of the wrench that are hidden. the scanner doesn't have xray
vision.

-jim

On Jul 6, 9:23*pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?


Dave

"Dave__67" wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.

It already is. Extrude Hone showed such a machine and system at IMTS 2000. I
may still have a photo of one of the parts, which I ran in my IMTS coverage
in _Machining_ magazine.

It's a takeoff on an injection-molding and sintering technique developed by
Rocketdyne back around 1979 or so, for making little, integral rocket
combustion chambers and nozzles. They mix powered metal with a plastic
binder, and then sinter the workpiece to evaporate the plastic and to form a
standard, sintered diffusion bond among the metal powder particles. They get
pretty good density.


Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

You can post-sinter-forge PM parts, if the shape lends itself to it (car
makers do this with engine connecting rods), but there are two other things
you can do to get near-100% density. One is to use a mix of metals that
coalesces into a compact mass when it's sintered. These mixtures are secrets
in the industry.

The other is to infiltrate the sintered part with molten metal. The bevel
gears on DeWalt angle-head grinders are made that way, PM-pressing the gears
from a steel alloy, sintering, and then infiltrating with copper to get 100%
density. It's very strong and very tough, and the accuracy of the bore is
something like +/- 0.001". We machined these at Wasino, to prove the process
for them, and they turn the bores to + 50 microinches, -0 with
cubic-boron-nitride tools. Dry.

I wrote a cover story on that process for _Tooling & Production_, back
around 1999 or 2000. These processes are not new.

--
Ed Huntress

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?


Dave

DougC wrote:

They do play to the audience a bit.

You misspelled the word 'lie'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie



--Winston

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.

It already is. Extrude Hone showed such a machine and system at IMTS 2000. I
may still have a photo of one of the parts, which I ran in my IMTS coverage
in _Machining_ magazine.


(...)


You can make your own parts via 3D printing too.
http://www.shapeways.com/

Upload your .STL file, select your material and
Bob's Your Uncle.
http://www.shapeways.com/upload/about

--Winston

"Dave__67" wrote in
message
...
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me
anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and
it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast
(unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot
stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the
wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?
Dave


No, you're not the only one. ;) At the end they
say if you're in space
and lose a tool you can make another one, but how,
if you lost the
pattern? heh heh ...
phil

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.

It already is. Extrude Hone showed such a machine and system at IMTS
2000. I
may still have a photo of one of the parts, which I ran in my IMTS
coverage
in _Machining_ magazine.


(...)


You can make your own parts via 3D printing too.
http://www.shapeways.com/

Upload your .STL file, select your material and
Bob's Your Uncle.
http://www.shapeways.com/upload/about

--Winston

It looks like it's come a long way in a short time. Note that the stainless
steel product is bronze-infiltrated.

I don't have Flash turned on so I didn't see the process. I'll look again on
my Linux machine to see what I can tell about it.

Thanks for the links.

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/7/2011 8:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?


Dave

Already is Dave..

http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/...tal/index.html

"tnik" wrote in message
...
On 7/7/2011 8:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?


Dave

Already is Dave..

http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/...tal/index.html

Yeah, that's Larry Rhoades' process. He died a few years ago, and it was
sold to Kennametal.

It's really impressive.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

(...)

Upload your .STL file, select your material and
Bob's Your Uncle.
http://www.shapeways.com/upload/about

--Winston

It looks like it's come a long way in a short time. Note that the stainless
steel product is bronze-infiltrated.

I don't have Flash turned on so I didn't see the process. I'll look again on
my Linux machine to see what I can tell about it.

Thanks for the links.

You're welcome.
This is exciting stuff!

--Winston

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 7/7/2011 8:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?


Dave

Already is Dave..

http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/...tal/index.html

Yeah, that's Larry Rhoades' process. He died a few years ago, and it was
sold to Kennametal.

It's really impressive.

I had ExOne make a little bronze steam turbine bucket for
me a few years ago. It worked great!

--Winston

Phil Kangas wrote:
"Dave__67" wrote in
message
...
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me
anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and
it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast
(unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot
stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the
wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?
Dave


No, you're not the only one. ;) At the end they
say if you're in space
and lose a tool you can make another one, but how,
if you lost the
pattern? heh heh ...
phil




As long as you have it "on file" (literally!) you don't need the original.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

CaveLamb wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:

(...)

No, you're not the only one. ;) At the end they say if you're in space
and lose a tool you can make another one, but how, if you lost the
pattern? heh heh ...
phil



As long as you have it "on file" (literally!) you don't need the original.

We oughta create a separate section of the dropbox
for G-code and .STL files.
It'd be cool to download and print an adapter bracket,
for example.

--Winston

Winston wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:

(...)

No, you're not the only one. ;) At the end they say if you're in space
and lose a tool you can make another one, but how, if you lost the
pattern? heh heh ...
phil



As long as you have it "on file" (literally!) you don't need the
original.

We oughta create a separate section of the dropbox
for G-code and .STL files.
It'd be cool to download and print an adapter bracket,
for example.

--Winston


That's

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

On 07/07/2011 05:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?

Aw c'mon. He's a _theoretical_ physicist. Even if an experimental
physicist _did_ know how to properly use an adjustable wrench, would a
theoretical physicist be able to retain the knowledge?

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On 07/07/2011 09:49 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On 07/07/2011 05:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?

Aw c'mon. He's a _theoretical_ physicist. Even if an experimental
physicist _did_ know how to properly use an adjustable wrench, would a
theoretical physicist be able to retain the knowledge?


Oops -- left out a phrase:

"Even if an experimental physicist _did_ know how to properly use an
adjustable wrench" (etc.)

Even if an experimental physicist _did_ know how to properly use an
adjustable wrench AND SHOWED HIM (etc.)

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On Jul 7, 10:42*am, tnik wrote:
On 7/7/2011 8:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:









On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil *wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?

Dave

Already is Dave..

http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/...tal/index.html

My AV spit up on that link...

" Location: http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/...tal/index.html
Access has been blocked as the threat Mal/ObfJS-BI has been found
on this website."

Dave

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 7/7/2011 8:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?


Dave

Already is Dave..

http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/...tal/index.html

Yeah, that's Larry Rhoades' process. He died a few years ago, and it was
sold to Kennametal.

It's really impressive.

I had ExOne make a little bronze steam turbine bucket for
me a few years ago. It worked great!

--Winston

Larry used to make some pretty impressive demo pieces for trade shows.

What was the bucket for? Were you making a steam turbine? I've always wanted
to make a DeLaval turbine. I even worked out some tooling for a faceplate to
turn the buckets. I never got very far with it, however, as other things
came up.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

What was the bucket for? Were you making a steam turbine?

Solar steam. It was gonna be nifty!
I figured the turbine output would be a nice RPM
match for a small alternator.
It was a ton of fun translating the equations into a
solid model! It was a thrill to see that the bucket
returned a water jet at the proper angle, too.

I've always wanted to make a DeLaval turbine.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...nchor=ref66516

That is a neat looking thing!

I even worked out some tooling for a faceplate to turn the buckets.
I never got very far with it, however, as other things came up.

I can relate.

Now I'm fantasizing about building a thermoacoustic engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0N7...eature=related

All the thrills for about 1% of the effort!


--Winston

"DougC" wrote in message
On 7/6/2011 9:15 PM, jim wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:

I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me
anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I think they are overstating the strength of
material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be
about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest
and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is
similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print
out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal
castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a
finished wrench

-jim

They do play to the audience a bit.

The videos imply that a simple visual scanner
can identify moving parts, such as the separate
parts of a wrench. I'd have to think there was
some CAD editing done in there, off-camera.

Also they like to overstate the use of
print-on-demand as a method of mass-production
manufacturing. This mthod is fantastic for
prototyping and mold-making but it's a very slow
and wasteful method for actual production of
identical parts. ...And will be (slow and
wasteful) for quite a while.

Eventually it will happen, but my guess is it
will be quite some number of years before you
see 3D-printed items sitting on any store
shelves in your town.

----------

A friend has this clear glass block about 2 x 2 x
3 inches and in the
center of it is this frosted image of a Harley in
the most exquisit
detail! Right down to the wiring and spokes. I
swear you can see
bugs on the windshield! Guy says it was done by
two intersecting
lasers CNC. Pretty neat...... ;)}
phil

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

What was the bucket for? Were you making a steam turbine?

Solar steam. It was gonna be nifty!
I figured the turbine output would be a nice RPM
match for a small alternator.

That's exactly what I had in mind. So, you were thinking about a
single-stage impulse turbine? I got hung up on bearings, because I was
looking at 40,000 rpm and a permanent-magnet alternator, possibly built into
the disk.

It was a ton of fun translating the equations into a
solid model! It was a thrill to see that the bucket
returned a water jet at the proper angle, too.

I've always wanted to make a DeLaval turbine.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...nchor=ref66516

That is a neat looking thing!

I even worked out some tooling for a faceplate to turn the buckets.
I never got very far with it, however, as other things came up.

I can relate.

Now I'm fantasizing about building a thermoacoustic engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0N7...eature=related

All the thrills for about 1% of the effort!

Oh, I love those things -- in concept, anyway. BTW, I was corresponding with
James Senft a couple of years ago, getting help on Stirling lubrication.

--
Ed Huntress




--Winston

The scan data base holds all knowledge.
All nuts and bolts and tools and belt buckles.....

In semiconductor these had been used for prototypes.
But in small toy companies - this would take wood models
and other models.

Mechanical companies often made prototypes out of plastic
before making 100,000 units in the order.

Nothing like fitting the bezel of this or that and finding
a mistake - fixing it - print another and sign-off on that one.

Martin

On 7/7/2011 9:13 AM, Phil Kangas wrote:
wrote in
message
...
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me
anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and
it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast
(unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot
stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the
wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?
Dave


No, you're not the only one. ;) At the end they
say if you're in space
and lose a tool you can make another one, but how,
if you lost the
pattern? heh heh ...
phil

We developed a neat advanced electron microscope that used
atoms and small molecules. With it we could on one screen,
look at the schematic, layout, and the microscopic real time picture.

We could drill holed down through layers - e.g. drill out vias
(connections between layers of an IC) and drill a new hole and plate the
hole full of metal.

That stuff was far out science. It was the size of a desk and the table
top opened in the center for the parts.

This was in the 90's.

Martin

On 7/7/2011 9:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 7/7/2011 8:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?


Dave

Already is Dave..

http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/...tal/index.html

Yeah, that's Larry Rhoades' process. He died a few years ago, and it was
sold to Kennametal.

It's really impressive.

Guy that are really smart are into things like math and physics.
'stuff' like a wrench - it takes a try and you have 50% good/bad.
If bad, reverse. I find most of them know nuts and bolts, but now
instruments like a crescent wrench. They know not to use up memory
for stuff that is simple.

Martin
[ Degree in Physics, Degree in Math - oxidized and rusty in both! ]

On 7/7/2011 12:35 PM, Winston wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote:
On 07/07/2011 09:49 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On 07/07/2011 05:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?

Aw c'mon. He's a _theoretical_ physicist. Even if an experimental
physicist _did_ know how to properly use an adjustable wrench, would a
theoretical physicist be able to retain the knowledge?


Oops -- left out a phrase:

"Even if an experimental physicist _did_ know how to properly use an
adjustable wrench" (etc.)

Even if an experimental physicist _did_ know how to properly use an
adjustable wrench AND SHOWED HIM (etc.)

The Crescent uncertainty principle?

--Winston

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
We developed a neat advanced electron microscope that used
atoms and small molecules. With it we could on one screen,
look at the schematic, layout, and the microscopic real time picture.

We could drill holed down through layers - e.g. drill out vias
(connections between layers of an IC) and drill a new hole and plate the
hole full of metal.

That stuff was far out science. It was the size of a desk and the table
top opened in the center for the parts.

This was in the 90's.

Martin

That sounds like a very cool system.

--
Ed Huntress


On 7/7/2011 9:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 7/7/2011 8:37 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:23 pm, "Phil wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

Someday this'll be done with powdered metal and it'll be sintered
afterwords.
Won't be as strong as forged or maybe even cast (unless they can work
in a compressing step), but it'll be a lot stronger.

Am I the only guy that noticed he was turning the wrench the wrong way
(there, that'll stir things up)?


Dave

Already is Dave..

http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/...tal/index.html

Yeah, that's Larry Rhoades' process. He died a few years ago, and it was
sold to Kennametal.

It's really impressive.

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

(...)

Solar steam. It was gonna be nifty!
I figured the turbine output would be a nice RPM
match for a small alternator.

That's exactly what I had in mind. So, you were thinking about a
single-stage impulse turbine?

Yup. I read somewhere that efficiency increased with number
of nozzles and number of buckets, so my runner looked
exactly like:
http://mysite.verizon.net/reswoead/s...es/Spinner.JPG

Too 'over the top'?
I hoped to limit RPM by using a large diameter runner.

I got hung up on bearings, because I was
looking at 40,000 rpm and a permanent-magnet alternator, possibly built into
the disk.

Sounds like a job for Magnetic Levitation!

(...)

Now I'm fantasizing about building a thermoacoustic engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0N7...eature=related

All the thrills for about 1% of the effort!

Oh, I love those things -- in concept, anyway.

Fun!

BTW, I was corresponding with
James Senft a couple of years ago, getting help on Stirling lubrication.

Sounds non-trivial because of the danger of improper or
excessive lubrication.

I bought several of these and passed them out to
friends and family several years ago:
http://www.pmresearchinc.com/store/p...1&cat=0&page=1

I simply did not believe it when mine sputtered to life
after assembly. 'Too cool for school.

--Winston

On Jul 7, 10:45*pm, Martin Eastburn
wrote:
...
Nothing like fitting the bezel of this or that and finding
a mistake - fixing it - print another and sign-off on that one.

Martin

I repaired a rapid prototype that had broken in shipping. The plastic
had about the same properties as Bondo. The ABS ones I've examined
seemed considerably stronger.

jsw

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 01:48:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:15:23 -0500, jim
wrote:

Phil Kangas wrote:

I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I think they are overstating the strength of material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a finished wrench

-jim


and its gonna be pain in the ass keeping the media in that open
topped box under zero g

Be a hell of a mess, eh wot?


That was my thought when they said use it in space. Suction would
not hold the powder. maybe if the whole machine were in a centrifuge
to simulate gravity.

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

(...)

Solar steam. It was gonna be nifty!
I figured the turbine output would be a nice RPM
match for a small alternator.

That's exactly what I had in mind. So, you were thinking about a
single-stage impulse turbine?

Yup. I read somewhere that efficiency increased with number
of nozzles and number of buckets, so my runner looked
exactly like:
http://mysite.verizon.net/reswoead/s...es/Spinner.JPG

Too 'over the top'?

I don't think it's over the top. It looks like a fairly standard
configuration. Depending on what kind of power output you're expecting, you
can get away with buckets that aren't split in the middle like that. But if
you're going for real efficiency or real power, you do.

I hoped to limit RPM by using a large diameter runner.

It's been a few years since I was studying the things, but the old deLavals
ran at something like 20,000 rpm. I was going for something around 8"
diameter, which, at the time, I calculated at 40,000 to get any decent power
out of it.

That's the trouble with small deLaval turbines. They have to spin like a
s.o.b. to get anything out of them. For demonstration or model purposes, of
course, you don't need the speed.


I got hung up on bearings, because I was
looking at 40,000 rpm and a permanent-magnet alternator, possibly built
into
the disk.

Sounds like a job for Magnetic Levitation!

Yeah, but I was just looking into pneumo-static, bleeding in some steam, or
possibly pneumo-dynamic. At those speeds, fluid-dynamic bearings can work.
But when they don't, and you get contact, stand back. d8-)

I also considered using ceramic ball bearings from a high-speed milling
spindle. I think they would do it, in small diameters, but that's where I
stopped.


(...)

Now I'm fantasizing about building a thermoacoustic engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0N7...eature=related

All the thrills for about 1% of the effort!

Oh, I don't know about those. I'll have to look into it. That isn't what you
were calling "thermoacoustic," is it? I thought thermoacoustic engines had
no pistons at all.


Oh, I love those things -- in concept, anyway.

Fun!

BTW, I was corresponding with
James Senft a couple of years ago, getting help on Stirling lubrication.

Sounds non-trivial because of the danger of improper or
excessive lubrication.

The problem is that liquid lubricants get into the hot end of the
displacement cylinder and cook on the hot head, which leaves a carbon layer
that wrecks heat-exchange efficiency and gets carbon into the whole engine.
The hot head runs at around 2,000 deg. F in a high-performance Stirling.
Ouch.

Again, models and demo engines are little problem.
Low-temperature-differential Stirlings just use a graphite power piston. I
have a large block of Poco 3 graphite (about 10" square and 1.5" thick),
from a worn-out EDM electrode, that I'm saving for making some of those. I
don't know how it will work because synthetic graphite is kind of nodular
and not as lubricious as natural graphite, but other people have used it, so
it must be Ok.


I bought several of these and passed them out to
friends and family several years ago:
http://www.pmresearchinc.com/store/p...1&cat=0&page=1

I simply did not believe it when mine sputtered to life
after assembly. 'Too cool for school.

That's cute. It looks like it's based on an old Popular Mechanics plan
that's around here somewhere.

--
Ed Huntress


--Winston

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

It's been a few years since I was studying the things, but the old deLavals
ran at something like 20,000 rpm. I was going for something around 8"
diameter, which, at the time, I calculated at 40,000 to get any decent power
out of it.

That is *fast*! You'd want to gear it *down* to drive the alternator
to limit eddy losses, I guess.

(...)

Yeah, but I was just looking into pneumo-static, bleeding in some steam, or
possibly pneumo-dynamic. At those speeds, fluid-dynamic bearings can work.
But when they don't, and you get contact, stand back. d8-)

I also considered using ceramic ball bearings from a high-speed milling
spindle. I think they would do it, in small diameters, but that's where I
stopped.

I guess that one *could* 'mount' ceramic bearings
'fluid dynamically' so that the balls spin at relatively
low RPM and the outer race floats on a steam cushion
'at speed' Avoiding radial oscillation would be a
challenge, though.

(...)

Now I'm fantasizing about building a thermoacoustic engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0N7...eature=related

All the thrills for about 1% of the effort!

Oh, I don't know about those. I'll have to look into it. That isn't what you
were calling "thermoacoustic," is it? I thought thermoacoustic engines had
no pistons at all.

I believe you are right. The mechanics are there to show a
way to extract power easily and are not required to demonstrate
thermoacoustics.

A better way to extract power might involve suspending a
plasma in a magnetic bottle at the end of the tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhcBrc-TUgk&NR=1
One coupling coil to pump the plasma, surrounded by
two coils to extract power as the thermoacoustic
engine caused the plasma (and it's associated magnetic
field) to oscillate axially.

Thermoacoustic magnetic hydrodynamics, sort of.
(I want an 'RCM attaboy' for typing that at 7:37 in the morning.)


(Stirling motor lubrication)

The problem is that liquid lubricants get into the hot end of the
displacement cylinder and cook on the hot head, which leaves a carbon layer
that wrecks heat-exchange efficiency and gets carbon into the whole engine.
The hot head runs at around 2,000 deg. F in a high-performance Stirling.
Ouch.

Perhaps modern synthetics would address the issue?

Again, models and demo engines are little problem.
Low-temperature-differential Stirlings just use a graphite power piston. I
have a large block of Poco 3 graphite (about 10" square and 1.5" thick),
from a worn-out EDM electrode, that I'm saving for making some of those. I
don't know how it will work because synthetic graphite is kind of nodular
and not as lubricious as natural graphite, but other people have used it, so
it must be Ok.

I guess one would want to wear a respirator while machining
that stuff, but I have no experience with it.


(little Stirling engine demonstrator)

That's cute. It looks like it's based on an old Popular Mechanics plan
that's around here somewhere.

'Wouldn't surprise me.
I love looking at old PM and Mechanix Illustrated, etc. magazines,
for this kind of thing. They are a reminder of how far we've
fallen as a culture though, so that bit is a little depressing.


--Winston

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

It's been a few years since I was studying the things, but the old
deLavals
ran at something like 20,000 rpm. I was going for something around 8"
diameter, which, at the time, I calculated at 40,000 to get any decent
power
out of it.

That is *fast*! You'd want to gear it *down* to drive the alternator
to limit eddy losses, I guess.

My thought was to use a coreless alternator with rare-earth magnets, like
they use in home-built wind turbines. With no core, there should be no
eddy-current losses -- I think -- and no hysteresis. Or you can use
powdered-iron cores, which will leave you somewhere in between.

In wind turbines, the purpose of going coreless is to avoid "cogging" ,and
possible stalling of the turbine, at low wind velocities. But there's no
loss in efficiency, only a loss in output for a given rpm. You make that up
with bigger margnets or windings. But, at 40,000 rpm, you shouldn't have
much to make up.


(...)

Yeah, but I was just looking into pneumo-static, bleeding in some steam,
or
possibly pneumo-dynamic. At those speeds, fluid-dynamic bearings can
work.
But when they don't, and you get contact, stand back. d8-)

I also considered using ceramic ball bearings from a high-speed milling
spindle. I think they would do it, in small diameters, but that's where I
stopped.

I guess that one *could* 'mount' ceramic bearings
'fluid dynamically' so that the balls spin at relatively
low RPM and the outer race floats on a steam cushion
'at speed' Avoiding radial oscillation would be a
challenge, though.

I don't think that ball bearings will work that way. They should have some
preload, and they will load themselves heavily against the outer race when
they get spinning at those speeds, anyway. Unlike a plain round shaft,
they're free to move under centrifugal force (and don' gimme no centripital
tedium g).


(...)

Now I'm fantasizing about building a thermoacoustic engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0N7...eature=related

All the thrills for about 1% of the effort!

Oh, I don't know about those. I'll have to look into it. That isn't what
you
were calling "thermoacoustic," is it? I thought thermoacoustic engines
had
no pistons at all.

I believe you are right. The mechanics are there to show a
way to extract power easily and are not required to demonstrate
thermoacoustics.

A better way to extract power might involve suspending a
plasma in a magnetic bottle at the end of the tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhcBrc-TUgk&NR=1
One coupling coil to pump the plasma, surrounded by
two coils to extract power as the thermoacoustic
engine caused the plasma (and it's associated magnetic
field) to oscillate axially.

Aack. Too high-tech for this amateur.

The easy application for thermoacoustic "engines" is cooling. They make
nifty refrigerators. That way, you don't need a separate system for coupling
the power, although it can be done.


Thermoacoustic magnetic hydrodynamics, sort of.
(I want an 'RCM attaboy' for typing that at 7:37 in the morning.)


Attaboy. My fingers usually need pre-heating at that hour. d8-)


(Stirling motor lubrication)

The problem is that liquid lubricants get into the hot end of the
displacement cylinder and cook on the hot head, which leaves a carbon
layer
that wrecks heat-exchange efficiency and gets carbon into the whole
engine.
The hot head runs at around 2,000 deg. F in a high-performance Stirling.
Ouch.

Perhaps modern synthetics would address the issue?

Not really. Even if you keep the lubricant liquid, it still coats the hot
end, as well as the cool end, and knocks your heat transfer into a cocked
hat. You don't want those surfaces coated with anything.


Again, models and demo engines are little problem.
Low-temperature-differential Stirlings just use a graphite power piston.
I
have a large block of Poco 3 graphite (about 10" square and 1.5" thick),
from a worn-out EDM electrode, that I'm saving for making some of those.
I
don't know how it will work because synthetic graphite is kind of nodular
and not as lubricious as natural graphite, but other people have used it,
so
it must be Ok.

I guess one would want to wear a respirator while machining
that stuff, but I have no experience with it.

Oh, I've machined a lot of it, back when I worked for Sodick and my 1945
South Bend was one of our few electrode-making tools. g I covered the
bedways with aluminum foil, sprayed with LPS or WD-40 to hold the grit, and
I used a vacuum system that consisted of a one-gallon milk bottle cut out
with my pocket knife to fit over the work, with the opening taped to my shop
vac. Real high-tech, but it worked very well. I use that same setup for
machining fiberglass rod and tube for ferrules on my home-built fishing
rods.



(little Stirling engine demonstrator)

That's cute. It looks like it's based on an old Popular Mechanics plan
that's around here somewhere.

'Wouldn't surprise me.
I love looking at old PM and Mechanix Illustrated, etc. magazines,
for this kind of thing. They are a reminder of how far we've
fallen as a culture though, so that bit is a little depressing.

My copy of _The Boy Mechanic_, from around 1958 or so, says to bore the
ferrule for your home-made longbow on your engine lathe.

Right. That would go over great today. g

--
Ed Huntress




--Winston

Randy333 wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 01:48:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:15:23 -0500, jim
wrote:

Phil Kangas wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day when something
like this could be done! Amazing, to me anyway...
phil k.

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/
I think they are overstating the strength of material

With the Zcorp process, that wrench would be about as strong as if it
were made of wood. And that is the strongest and most expensive
material. The typical Zcorp printed material is similar to styrofoam.

They do have another process that will print out sand molds that are
then filled with molten metal to make metal castings. But then there
would be some machining before you had a finished wrench

-jim

and its gonna be pain in the ass keeping the media in that open
topped box under zero g

Be a hell of a mess, eh wot?


That was my thought when they said use it in space. Suction would
not hold the powder. maybe if the whole machine were in a centrifuge
to simulate gravity.

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy


Perhaps further development would make that unnecessary.
For instance, the powder might be modified to sheet form
so it can be rolled in place rather than blown?

Remember, what you see here is still first generation stuff...


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)


(DeLavals)

In wind turbines, the purpose of going coreless is to avoid "cogging" ,and
possible stalling of the turbine, at low wind velocities. But there's no
loss in efficiency, only a loss in output for a given rpm. You make that up
with bigger margnets or windings. But, at 40,000 rpm, you shouldn't have
much to make up.

I imagine one would have to pot the windings in order to keep them from
heading out on walkabout at 40 K RPM.

(...)

I don't think that ball bearings will work that way. They should have some
preload, and they will load themselves heavily against the outer race when
they get spinning at those speeds, anyway.

Ah. Perhaps a pressurized reservoir to run the bearings until
operating speed is attained, then.


Unlike a plain round shaft,
they're free to move under centrifugal force (and don' gimme no centripital
tediumg).

I wouldn't dare.

(...)

The easy application for thermoacoustic "engines" is cooling. They make
nifty refrigerators. That way, you don't need a separate system for coupling
the power, although it can be done.

So, conceivably one could drive the thermoacoustic with
a wind mill to provide cooling from wind for no additional power.
Nifty!

(...)

Perhaps modern synthetics would address the issue?

Not really. Even if you keep the lubricant liquid, it still coats the hot
end, as well as the cool end, and knocks your heat transfer into a cocked
hat. You don't want those surfaces coated with anything.

Perhaps GE would like to grow some diamond pistons and
cylinders for the fun of it.


(Graphite)

Oh, I've machined a lot of it, back when I worked for Sodick and my 1945
South Bend was one of our few electrode-making tools.g I covered the
bedways with aluminum foil, sprayed with LPS or WD-40 to hold the grit, and
I used a vacuum system that consisted of a one-gallon milk bottle cut out
with my pocket knife to fit over the work, with the opening taped to my shop
vac. Real high-tech, but it worked very well. I use that same setup for
machining fiberglass rod and tube for ferrules on my home-built fishing
rods.

You make it sound simple.


(...)

My copy of _The Boy Mechanic_, from around 1958 or so, says to bore the
ferrule for your home-made longbow on your engine lathe.

Right. That would go over great today.g

I dunno about that! See pp 35 and 238 of:
http://books.google.com/books?prints...g e&q&f=false


--Winston