This steel 3d printing machine makes machinists obsolete. Goodbye machinists! - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 87
  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1466
    Likes (Received)
    2557

    Default

    Does no one else see the obvious? 2 welders with 2 alloys. Mass produced Damascus steel!

    Or damascus poop maybe.

  2. Likes yardbird, Oldwrench, AD Design liked this post
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    6,086
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    238
    Likes (Received)
    4900

    Default

    Part of my employee training for toolholder repairs is to tig weld a bead over bead for a 1" square tube 3/4 inch tall.
    They are not pretty as welded.
    Then machine the outside on the B-port to 1.000 +/-.001, the inside to .750 +/-.001, height to .750, bead blast and inspect under microscope.
    Any pinholes and try again until you get a good one.
    Takes a while to pass this test, often weeks or more even for guys already good with a tig, and you certainly wonder if you just got lucky.
    This seems easy but it is not.
    It is great practice for learning how to build with a welder instead of just joining two pieces. One quickly figures out that you need a "draft" and sharp outside corners need overhang.

    So now we have a computer doing it. Fine, very precision positioning control but every level deposited is an arc.
    It is going to look like dog poop rough, it has to. No way the internal cavities flow nicely unless you have one of those machines that weld, machine, weld more, machine, rinse and repeat.

    A great idea at first and it would be so sweet if it worked, 30 years doing it might make you think twice.
    For sure this is not a new concept and has dinosaur poop all over it.
    This is at least 40-60 year back stuff.
    Bob

  4. Likes Mud, MartyZero liked this post
  5. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    Then machine the outside on the B-port to 1.000 +/-.001, the inside to .750 +/-.001, height to .750, bead blast and inspect under microscope.



    Bob
    What radius is allowed on the inside corners?

  6. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    6,086
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    238
    Likes (Received)
    4900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toolroomguy View Post
    What radius is allowed on the inside corners?
    .125 for this test although of course on a real pocket it is zero and the corner is overcut.
    Here I don't really care.
    T'is a test and lesson of welding, building walls and pinholes that show up, not of making pockets.
    How to get that correct inside corner fit/relief while not scarifying loading/locating walls is a whole different deal. One has to always assume the customer has a zero radius and provide some room for dirt.
    I do get where you are going with this but not it's not so much a deal with weld up training.
    One could ask the same type question on pocket floor undercuts but we are trying to get solid welds and the number just forces a finish at a given amount not where the part looks nice.

    Different lessons, baby steps. I will not throw the whole ball of wax at a new guy trying to master the tig.
    Bob

  7. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    239

    Default

    I have to tig weld for mold repair, sometimes .025" filler, sometimes larger.
    How do I teach the new guy to see how much "extra" to add to the bead? It is such a judgement call.

  8. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jsmith3322 View Post
    This 3d printing machine (snip) I would let you know so you can start training and equipping your shop with these machines, or looking for another line of work.
    I am wondering how a normalization heat treatment is not required to get a homogeneous grain structure that can be readily machined. Unless you only use low carbon steel wire you are going to have hard spots throughout the work piece.
    Other additive processes need supporting structures included to keep the part from sagging or warping during construction. I can see machining a wall out of the middle of a thin wall structure as being problematic.

  9. #47
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,798
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6003
    Likes (Received)
    4178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toolroomguy View Post
    ...how a normalization heat treatment is not required to get a homogeneous grain structure that can be readily machined
    Note there is no evidence that it is readily machinable. It probably isn't, at least not beyond surface cleanup--certainly not to accurate dimensions. The whole idea is kind of silly, trying to extrapolate the buildup process, a proven method for reclaiming damaged insert pockets on large expensive toolholders, to essentially depositing the rough shape of the entire toolholder. The rough shape for most machined objects already exists in the form of bar stock. For complex shapes there's forming and fabricating, and of course casting in its many forms. I doubt the energy cost for pouring one of those bottle shapes from an ingot would exceed that for building it up by melting a couple miles of mig wire, at least not when you added in the finishing cost. Anyway, having spent a few years machining welds, I have reason to lack enthusiasm regarding its potential.

  10. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    219
    Likes (Received)
    517

    Default

    I am definitely canceling my order for that crappy, outdated Mori horizontal.

  11. #49
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Ontario
    Posts
    308
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    74
    Likes (Received)
    108

    Default

    Since all you machinists are going to be selling your machines at the same time to buy this amazing new technology, thus dropping the resale value to virtually 0, I'll put out the gracious offer of 1 cent on the dollar for your machines!

  12. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1353
    Likes (Received)
    2710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toolroomguy View Post
    I am wondering how a normalization heat treatment is not required to get a homogeneous grain structure that can be readily machined. Unless you only use low carbon steel wire you are going to have hard spots throughout the work piece.
    Other additive processes need supporting structures included to keep the part from sagging or warping during construction. I can see machining a wall out of the middle of a thin wall structure as being problematic.
    It's not needed for the type of work in the OP because it's pieces of shit that no one cares about the quality of.

    Post-process heat treatment is common in DMLS parts where people /do/ care about quality, though.

    OP is just trolling. Doubt he's even been back since dropping this bomb. Strikes me as some bored redditor hobbyist who enjoys stirring the pot.

  13. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Kingston, MA
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jCandlish View Post
    News alert!!!

    Investment casting makes machinists obsolete.

    Metalurgists and Patternmakers seen in high demand.

    In other words: "Set the wayback machine Mr. Peabody".
    These machines are very different from castings. Castings require investments for every part. These machines require one investment.

    EVENTUALLY these machines WILL have a significant impact on the machining industry. That's a fact. It will take a very long time for the accuracy, speed, cost, strength of material and several other factors to be where they need to be to make this feasible for most jobs but it will happen. Maybe 20 years? 20 Years seems like a long time but it's really not. They had 3d printers 20 years ago. They still haven't replaced machine shops. The shops that have embraced them are the smart ones. The guys that say "if man were meant to fly they would've been born with wings" are the guys who will be left behind.

  14. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Country
    SWITZERLAND
    Posts
    3,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    649
    Likes (Received)
    1209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BPS Automation View Post
    The shops that have embraced them are the smart ones.
    The shops that drink the kool-aid without loosing money are the lucky ones.

    There are more interesting things that happen in the liquid->solid phase change than are envisioned in the current 3d printing fad.

    The phase change is the more profitable vein to mine. Net shape will come later, as a compromise on phase change process control.

  15. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    4,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    83
    Likes (Received)
    1005

    Default

    I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a gentleman who is pursuing 3D metal printing (not with MIG though). His attitude was better :-). He and I discussed the feasibility of a machine that could add and subtract metals -- why suffer under the tyranny of Or?

    The issue that I see with folks that are heads-down on 3D printing is some (many?) of them have no knowledge, either book or real-world,, about metallurgy. Yield vs. tensile, elongation, Charpy, RC, all that stuff. They tend to get tunnel vision on the appearance of the thing, and feel that once they are able to make something that dimensionally looks like the thing, it's done. That of course is the easy part, and folks have been making metal things that look right for a couple thousand years, but history is rich with incidents of that metal thing not actually meeting the need, often with tragic consequences.

    Other issue is economics -- even if (when) a gizmo could accurately print a metal thing that had the right metallurgy, it's not broadly interesting unless it costs less. I have yet to see an analysis of end-to-end costs (with some assumptions made to make the comparison more reasonable). Maybe I'm being obtuse, but it seems to me the raw material for 3D printing metal is going to be far more costly than monolithic metals -- MIG wire, for example. A quick check on current prices shows ~$3/# for mild steel .035" wire. Obviously I can buy mild steel bar for a fraction of that. Both of these are high-volume commodity items so the pricing ought to be fairly stable. Wouldn't powdered metals have an even higher multiple? AFAIK, mild steel starts out as a melt, which is made into bars, which can then be made into thin wire, or powdered. Of course, a part that, with pure subtractive machining, needs 90% metal removal stacks up way differently than a part that only needs 10% metal removal.

    I think that additive metal printing is a lot of years away from making finished metal parts that meet today's dimensional, materials-properties, and economic needs.

    Regards.

    Mike

  16. Likes sfriedberg liked this post
  17. #54
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    345
    Likes (Received)
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    I think that additive metal printing is a lot of years away from making finished metal parts that meet today's dimensional, materials-properties, and economic needs.

    Regards.

    Mike
    You would be very wrong in that assumption of course. Additive metal printing is already key to producing finished metal parts which exceed the performance of previous means, in terms of geometry, material properties, and economic needs, in high end aerospace and rocketry applications. Go see what SpaceX and GE are up to with their state of the art components. This is of course, miles from the kind of dogshit the OP is on about, but that's besides the point. Additive metal processes are already instrumental to cutting edge components.

  18. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    4,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    83
    Likes (Received)
    1005

    Default

    OK, fair enough, in some niches, it's there. Clearly there are many exotic processes that are making niche components that could not otherwise be made, and that's awesome.

    I'm talking about general purpose metal parts. Bushings, knobs, shafts, brackets, etc., the things that 95% of us are spending 95% of our time making.

    Regards.

    Mike

  19. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1353
    Likes (Received)
    2710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jCandlish View Post
    The shops that drink the kool-aid without loosing money are the lucky ones.

    There are more interesting things that happen in the liquid->solid phase change than are envisioned in the current 3d printing fad.

    The phase change is the more profitable vein to mine. Net shape will come later, as a compromise on phase change process control.
    There is -extensive- research into this. There's a -lot- to gain by replacing some castings with a DMLS/SLS part. Geometry and cost. Sometimes, yes, it actually works out in cost.

    Every now and then I like to look up the latest in materials research on this topic and use it for 'toilet reading'. It's not terribly unknown, and with the right heat treat, the material is far superior and much less porous than similar cast material.

    Now... just like any bleeding-edge technology, the stuff we see 'on our level' may or may not lag behind significantly. Plus, there are some things that will never be "home economical". How long has 5axis machining been around, and it's not like anyone is going to do this at home. Aside from the occasional vaporware Kickstarter for some shitty 3+2 machine that, while representing an impressive cost/benefit ratio, is nothing close to actual technological capabilities.

  20. #57
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    345
    Likes (Received)
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    OK, fair enough, in some niches, it's there. Clearly there are many exotic processes that are making niche components that could not otherwise be made, and that's awesome.

    I'm talking about general purpose metal parts. Bushings, knobs, shafts, brackets, etc., the things that 95% of us are spending 95% of our time making.

    Regards.

    Mike
    yep, in those regards, nothing will be more economical thru the next century than turning bars/extrusions/sheets/coils of material into simple parts, or near net shape conventional processes (and we all know it). It simply doesn't get any cheaper... cost of material plus a small margin to produce. "Additive" can't compete in that.

  21. #58
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    12,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1466
    Likes (Received)
    2557

    Default

    This reminds me of the powdered metal craze of 30 years. PM was touted to take the place of nearly all machining, forging, casting, etc. It's still used effectively for many things, but it failed in a lot of places it was tried until it's limits were clearly identified.

  22. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    219
    Likes (Received)
    517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a gentleman who is pursuing 3D metal printing (not with MIG though). His attitude was better :-). He and I discussed the feasibility of a machine that could add and subtract metals -- why suffer under the tyranny of Or?

    The issue that I see with folks that are heads-down on 3D printing is some (many?) of them have no knowledge, either book or real-world,, about metallurgy. Yield vs. tensile, elongation, Charpy, RC, all that stuff. They tend to get tunnel vision on the appearance of the thing, and feel that once they are able to make something that dimensionally looks like the thing, it's done. That of course is the easy part, and folks have been making metal things that look right for a couple thousand years, but history is rich with incidents of that metal thing not actually meeting the need, often with tragic consequences.

    Other issue is economics -- even if (when) a gizmo could accurately print a metal thing that had the right metallurgy, it's not broadly interesting unless it costs less. I have yet to see an analysis of end-to-end costs (with some assumptions made to make the comparison more reasonable). Maybe I'm being obtuse, but it seems to me the raw material for 3D printing metal is going to be far more costly than monolithic metals -- MIG wire, for example. A quick check on current prices shows ~$3/# for mild steel .035" wire. Obviously I can buy mild steel bar for a fraction of that. Both of these are high-volume commodity items so the pricing ought to be fairly stable. Wouldn't powdered metals have an even higher multiple? AFAIK, mild steel starts out as a melt, which is made into bars, which can then be made into thin wire, or powdered. Of course, a part that, with pure subtractive machining, needs 90% metal removal stacks up way differently than a part that only needs 10% metal removal.

    I think that additive metal printing is a lot of years away from making finished metal parts that meet today's dimensional, materials-properties, and economic needs.

    Regards.

    Mike
    Check this . INTEGREX i-4AM - YouTube

  23. #60
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    345
    Likes (Received)
    238

    Default

    Holy shit. didn't know Mazak was into it... makes sense with laser and machining background though. Hermle does some as well, not laser deposition I think though.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •